The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I'm a plumber... and am thinking of running in the next election.
Would it be okay if I expensed my $400/month Plumbers Union dues after I get elected?

Firstly, plumbing is far more remote from the duties of a Premier than practicing law is from the duties of a Premier.

Secondly, union dues are very different than professional regulatory body dues. Law Societies are not unions. They are nothing like unions. For example, the primary purpose of Law Societies is to protect the public from bad lawyers (and therefore Law Societies routinely discipline their members) whereas the primary purpose of a union is to represent the interests of its members.

Lastly, despite my above points, I still wouldn't have any problem with the province paying your $400/month union dues if it meant attracting the best candidates for Premier of a province of ~4 million people.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Anyone else remember that time when Peter MacKay called in a military helicopter to pick him up from a fishing trip in Newfoundland and then took a government Challenger jet to a lobster festival in Nova Scotia? I don't recall any Conservative supporters here calling on him to resign or even suggesting he should be compelled to pay back the estimated $150,000 his personal travel cost the taxpayers. I'm sure there must be a totally valid reason why MacKay's wasteful misuse of government transport was a-ok but Redford's wasteful misuse of government transport was so heinous that it forced her resignation, though.

I think the difference is that for McKay, so far as I know, that was an incident. For Redfordit was a habit. If she had only done it once or twice, she'd still be premier.

[Mr.Coffee]

the argument that "so and so" did questionable expensey things too doesn't really sit too well with me. Those jabronies should be questioned as well. Two wrongs don't make a right kinda thing I guess.

No, nothing Redford did was THAT bad per say, but I sure as #### don't want her flying all over the bloody place as premier of our province either and then expensing it like it's an afternoon coffee networking hour.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Firstly, plumbing is far more remote from the duties of a Premier than practicing law is from the duties of a Premier.

Secondly, union dues are very different than professional regulatory body dues. Law Societies are not unions. They are nothing like unions. For example, the primary purpose of Law Societies is to protect the public from bad lawyers (and therefore Law Societies routinely discipline their members) whereas the primary purpose of a union is to represent the interests of its members.

Lastly, despite my above points, I still wouldn't have any problem with the province paying your $400/month union dues if it meant attracting the best candidates for Premier of a province of ~4 million people.

All valid points.. but where do you draw the line? At what point are politicians responsible for their own personal expenses instead of continually drawing from the public trough? Being a lawyer is not a prerequisite to being a politician. Nowhere do I recall it being in job description requirements.

Why should I, John Q Public, be responsible for paying your law society dues... because I'm electing (or hiring you) to be my MLA or MP, not my lawyer. Its time we started drawing the line a little clearer on these expense accounts that seem to be abused over and over again.

... and don't give me that line again about attracting the best candidates. The best candidates run for numerous reasons and rarely is monetary compensation/ benefits one of them... and if it is, you're probably not the best candidate (as illustrated by Queen Redford)

[Kjesse]

Some great posts above about why the membership fees are OK... or not. I called it a grey area because, I'd think if one were Premier they'd want to be absolutely above board on everything. Its not clear that its an expense to run through the public coffer.

Let's see what the auditor has to say about it tomorrow.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Maybe she does need to have her membership dues paid. That way, she can defend herself in a court of law in case something like...say...a spending scandal were to arise during her term as premier!

[Tinordi]

Kill the witch!

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Some great posts above about why the membership fees are OK... or not. I called it a grey area because, I'd think if one were Premier they'd want to be absolutely above board on everything. Its not clear that its an expense to run through the public coffer.

Let's see what the auditor has to say about it tomorrow.

I believe the Auditor General is a Chartered Accountant. Think he expenses his $1,400/yr fees to the Institute of Chartered Accountants? I'll bet you he does....A completely acceptable expense and laughable to think otherwise.

[Slava]

To me this is exactly where it's a witch hunt as opposed to actual public policy. Between the law society dues and flight to South Africa (which was not only questionable, but paid back), we're looking at $49,000. Have a quick look through Klein's track record, or Stelmach. These guys were flying their wives all over the place and no one seemed to have a worry at all. I'm job making a two wrongs make a right argument here though. It just seems that for some reason people are holding Redford to a different standard. I'm not sure why that is really.

If you listen to people (like my wife) she thinks it's gender. When Peter McKay has a helicopter pick him up to go to a lobster boil I think it gets laughed off as a "boys will be boys" sort of thing. Like, yeah, that's a pretty ignorant thing to do, but kind of so ridiculous it's amusing. Redford uses government aircraft to attend a world leaders funeral that she once worked for and people are up in arms. To be honest I never really considered the gender angle because I think it's just wrong, but maybe there is something to it. For the most part these 'transgressions' seem so minor, and maybe we really are far more willing to cut slack to male leaders?

[Senator Clay Davis]

The amount of professional dues that the province pays likely equates to less than 1/100 of 1% of the total Alberta budget. It's an inconsequential amount of money. And it's pro forma at virtually any company that expects to attract good people. I know, I know, government is not a company, we should treat people much worse than the private sector and hope that good people want to run for office out of the kindness of their hearts. I'm sure we'll attract many great candidates that way.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Slava

To me this is exactly where it's a witch hunt as opposed to actual public policy. Between the law society dues and flight to South Africa (which was not only questionable, but paid back), we're looking at $49,000. Have a quick look through Klein's track record, or Stelmach. These guys were flying their wives all over the place and no one seemed to have a worry at all. I'm job making a two wrongs make a right argument here though. It just seems that for some reason people are holding Redford to a different standard. I'm not sure why that is really.

If you listen to people (like my wife) she thinks it's gender. When Peter McKay has a helicopter pick him up to go to a lobster boil I think it gets laughed off as a "boys will be boys" sort of thing. Like, yeah, that's a pretty ignorant thing to do, but kind of so ridiculous it's amusing. Redford uses government aircraft to attend a world leaders funeral that she once worked for and people are up in arms. To be honest I never really considered the gender angle because I think it's just wrong, but maybe there is something to it. For the most part these 'transgressions' seem so minor, and maybe we really are far more willing to cut slack to male leaders?

I don't think it's a gender thing at all and more the fact that McKay and others at least had some tact. Redford was using private jets to holiday with her and her kid while Sylvan Lake and Calgary (her riding of all places) were in a state of disaster. I can guarantee Ralph Klein would have had a lot more tact and wouldn't have been flying to a Jasper resort for an entire weekend for supposedly 2 hours of meetings and back on an empty plane during such a situation. IMO you lose the benefit of the doubt when you show contempt for the people you were sworn in to represent.

When it comes to a guy like Klein or even Stelmach there isn't a lot of evidence to show that they at least didn't care about Albertans or didn't care about the cause while there is plenty of evidence that shows Redford not only didn't care about Albertans but thought she was above them. That's why lots of people loathe her and not necessarily because she was using taxpayer money to fund her lavish lifestyle. She simply isn't a good person end of story.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

To me this is exactly where it's a witch hunt as opposed to actual public policy. Between the law society dues and flight to South Africa (which was not only questionable, but paid back), we're looking at $49,000. Have a quick look through Klein's track record, or Stelmach. These guys were flying their wives all over the place and no one seemed to have a worry at all. I'm job making a two wrongs make a right argument here though. It just seems that for some reason people are holding Redford to a different standard. I'm not sure why that is really.

Why are you only looking at two incidents when it appears the real number is in the dozens or more? Why not mention the Sky Palace? Or flying her daughter's friends around on personal trips? Or sending staffers to Europe ahead of her to scout out hotels and restaurants for her use? Or lying about the availability of commercial flights that she should have used so she could abuse the government plane? Or the fake passengers to ensure that Queen Alison flies alone? Or god knows what else we don't know about yet?

I don't think people are holding Redford to a different standard. I think people view her as being corrupt, and the evidence generally supports that position. What also doesn't help is the fact that she appears to be completely unlikable.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I'm sure many would say the same, which leads me to wonder if the "acceptability" of a particular expense by a politician depends on whether a common person expenses the same expense themselves.

Expensing bar dues? Oh, sure, no issue, I do that too.

Expensing a monthly cell phone? No issue, who doesn't?

Expensing $200 meals? Yeah, that's fine....I guess, so long as it doesn't happen too often.

Expensing a $45k trip to some random event? Errrr, I can't, so that sure seems wrong...

Etc....

Yeah my friend and I were talking about this, and really people witch hunt because it's relatable to them.

People buy $300 economy-class tickets but they can see that first class is $1500 on the same flight, so when leaders take first class, they get all up in arms. "Oh my god they're wasting my taxpayer dollars!"

However, something like the Ontario power plant scandal happens, where $700 million is wasted and people can't relate. They can't relate to the utility of a power plant. They can't relate to the regulatory, technical or political decisions behind the construction or cancellation of the power plant. Most people can't even visualize what 700 million dollars looks like in bill form, or how much money that actually is.

So it becomes far less of a "black eye" on the government than when you are abusing private jets or luxury hotels, even though the overall impact is absolutely inconsequential in the big picture.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Slava

To me this is exactly where it's a witch hunt as opposed to actual public policy. Between the law society dues and flight to South Africa (which was not only questionable, but paid back), we're looking at $49,000. Have a quick look through Klein's track record, or Stelmach. These guys were flying their wives all over the place and no one seemed to have a worry at all. I'm job making a two wrongs make a right argument here though. It just seems that for some reason people are holding Redford to a different standard. I'm not sure why that is really.

If you listen to people (like my wife) she thinks it's gender. When Peter McKay has a helicopter pick him up to go to a lobster boil I think it gets laughed off as a "boys will be boys" sort of thing. Like, yeah, that's a pretty ignorant thing to do, but kind of so ridiculous it's amusing. Redford uses government aircraft to attend a world leaders funeral that she once worked for and people are up in arms. To be honest I never really considered the gender angle because I think it's just wrong, but maybe there is something to it. For the most part these 'transgressions' seem so minor, and maybe we really are far more willing to cut slack to male leaders?

I will give you credit. You are probably one of the few people left in this province who still blames sexism on precipitating her downfall, and still beats the drum.

Although I believe everything you wrote is true, in part, it is not why she fell. She fell because she sucked as a leader who tried to enact change. By all accounts she was a cow, to everyone. She ran her office like a queen, and that ticked many people off.

By writing her demise off as caused by sexism is not looking deep enough. The woman did just about everything wrong as someone who wants to influence the people who she needs to make change. She spoke down, and not at people. Frock even her goodbye letter sounded like a big F U I am better than you.

At any rate, this was a decent article I found last night, written by a woman, on how Redford just didn't get it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08...-the-province/

So bottom line, maybe she had a bit less track to be a bad leader as a woman, but in the end she went about her good policies in totally the wrong way and got turfed. Time to move on and see how Smith does in the role in a few years.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Yeah my friend and I were talking about this, and really people witch hunt because it's relatable to them.

I remember when Redford originally resigned, the stay-at-home wife of an old classmate of mine went on social media whining about how she felt "sorry for Redford" and "that people should think of her daughter" and "people need to cut her some slack because she was trying to do a hard job while being a mother at the same time."

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I remember when Redford originally resigned, the stay-at-home wife of an old classmate of mine went on social media whining about how she felt "sorry for Redford" and "that people should think of her daughter" and "people need to cut her some slack because she was trying to do a hard job while being a mother at the same time."

Yeah, I remember how one of the esteemed members of the current leadership race showed up at every Redford event when this story started to break screaming at the media that they were being mean to a mother and that she basically had a right to these perks.

And now he's one of the guys throwing her under the bus.

Right Thomas.

This has nothing to do with Redford being a woman, this has more to do with her being un-repentant and holding everyone around her in contempt.

But we shouldn't be setting the standard lower because a leader has children or is a woman or whatever, that's a worse form of sexism then the traditional one.

[troutman]

"Redford was bad."

"Smith is not Redford."

"We must vote for Smith".

Constructing a Logical Argument
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Soc...ion/Logic.html

[Burke Salad]

I believe Redford loosened the laws towards public availability of Government spending? Maybe she is falling on her own sword, as compared to Klein and Stelmach.

[1stLand]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I will give you credit. You are probably one of the few people left in this province who still blames sexism on precipitating her downfall, and still beats the drum.

Although I believe everything you wrote is true, in part, it is not why she fell. She fell because she sucked as a leader who tried to enact change. By all accounts she was a cow, to everyone. She ran her office like a queen, and that ticked many people off.

By writing her demise off as caused by sexism is not looking deep enough. The woman did just about everything wrong as someone who wants to influence the people who she needs to make change. She spoke down, and not at people. Frock even her goodbye letter sounded like a big F U I am better than you.

At any rate, this was a decent article I found last night, written by a woman, on how Redford just didn't get it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08...-the-province/

So bottom line, maybe she had a bit less track to be a bad leader as a woman, but in the end she went about her good policies in totally the wrong way and got turfed. Time to move on and see how Smith does in the role in a few years.

Its not so much Slava that is beating the sexism drum, he mentioned it was his wife that referred to it.

Slava needs to remember who the real Premier is back at "Casa Slava" and act accordingly.

The keys to a good marriage are agreeance!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I will give you credit. You are probably one of the few people left in this province who still blames sexism on precipitating her downfall, and still beats the drum.

Although I believe everything you wrote is true, in part, it is not why she fell. She fell because she sucked as a leader who tried to enact change. By all accounts she was a cow, to everyone. She ran her office like a queen, and that ticked many people off.

By writing her demise off as caused by sexism is not looking deep enough. The woman did just about everything wrong as someone who wants to influence the people who she needs to make change. She spoke down, and not at people. Frock even her goodbye letter sounded like a big F U I am better than you.

At any rate, this was a decent article I found last night, written by a woman, on how Redford just didn't get it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08...-the-province/

So bottom line, maybe she had a bit less track to be a bad leader as a woman, but in the end she went about her good policies in totally the wrong way and got turfed. Time to move on and see how Smith does in the role in a few years.

Well that's kind of my point. I think that its partly just our male nature, but when women are powerful and run an office in that manner they're cows and bitches. When men run things that way they're a bull in the boardroom or keep everyone in line. I'm not suggesting that there is a double-standard because I don't think that were all a bunch of misogynists and frankly women treat other women/men in the same manner.

I'm not suggesting that she bears no responsibility either, and its not a case where I think that her actions mean that she was treated badly so she is free and clear. I just think that these same actions or similar by a man in the same position come across differently and we're more likely to overlook them, thats all.