Redford Accused of Conflict of Interest

[Dion]

Regardless, Mount Royal University political analyst David Taras said Redford lacks the sure hand of former premier Ralph Klein when it comes to political damage control.

“Klein would have skated through this in about 30 seconds (given) ... his ability to appeal to the public and his incredible sort of sixth sense of where the public was,” Taras said Monday.

“What has changed is that (former premier Ed) Stelmach didn’t have any of those skills and we’re seeing from Redford a real lack of skill in being able to perform in the house, articulate a defence, appeal to the public and know where the public is.”

Pollster Marc Henry, president of ThinkHQ Public Affairs, said Redford is “acting like a lawyer.”

“You get into this lawyerly discussion about whether it was legal, not legal, you’re parsing things. You’re trying to win a legal argument,” said Henry, a former chief of staff to Calgary mayor Dave Bronconnier.

“The problem that she’s got is, this is not a legal argument. This is an argument in public opinion.”

Grant MacEwan University political science professor Chaldeans Mensah thinks politics has become harder-edged in Alberta.

“We have a very determined opposition in the Wildrose that has brought a new edginess to politics. They are on a perpetual campaign and they tend to dramatize political debate,” he said.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Al...379/story.html

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Yes, how ridiculous that the Speaker of the Legislature makes a ruling on such a matter. I guess Zwozdesky should have resigned so the PCs could elect a Speaker from the Opposition instead.

He has ties with the PC party being a former MLA. I would hardly call the decison unbiased. It should have been done by some independant.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Dion

He has ties with the PC party being a former MLA. I would hardly call the decison unbiased. It should have been done by some independant.

So we're just going to re-write parliamentary procedure on the fly?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

So we're just going to re-write parliamentary procedure on the fly?

Who said that?

[1stLand]

Partisan politics aside, this thing stinks.
I encourage PC caucus members to speak out. If my leader blatantly lied about his or her involvement I would call them out on it. I believe every caucus member's loyalties should lie with their constituents first and not their leader.

This is not a small conflict of interest case either. We are talking billions of dollars.
I am sure favors are going to be returned personally to Redford once she is out of politics. Millions of dollars in 'consulting fees' paid to her.

[oilboy2]

So what would have been said had it been awarded to the law firm that had Peter lougheed involvement who by the way happened to go after it as well? Just another huge conflict as well I guess????

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/12/03...-partys-issues

It has also been raised that the late Peter Lougheed, one of Redford’s mentors, was a member of one of the losing firms in the competition.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by oilboy2

So what would have been said had it been awarded to the law firm that had Peter lougheed involvement who by the way happened to go after it as well? Just another huge conflict as well I guess????

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/12/03...-partys-issues

It has also been raised that the late Peter Lougheed, one of Redford’s mentors, was a member of one of the losing firms in the competition.

The idea is that she should have recused herself.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

So you have no problem with Redford lying in the house?

Not surprising I suppose since you defend her at every turn. The PC's are after all basically a Liberal party now.

I'm not defending her actions though. Where did I say that? I just pointed out that other than ardent Wildrose supporters, not many "average Albertans" really care about this. Maybe Charles Rusnell is in there as well.

Isn't there anything else to discuss? Don't the Wildrose MPs have some questions to ask from this year? Maybe from after the election? I know....I hate to be so partisan and defend the government by suggesting that they could question the economy, healthcare, education, or other topics.

Originally Posted by transplant99

I just cant help wondering what the reaction would be from the left if this had occurred in the HoC with PM Harper...pure and utter disdain is my guess.

Instead though...its no problem and once again, turned somehow into what the WR are doing instead. Its so transparent.

Ah, there's the T99 we know and love with the complete deflection. Of course this turns into what the Wildrose is doing, after all they're the ones acting like spoiled children stomping away when they don't get their way. But no, we should ignore that. Let's talk about the contract some more.

I do enjoy that you brought up the federal CPC though. The same PM who was actually found in contempt of parliament last year! Remember that? You were one of the great defenders of him and basically brushed the issue aside because the opposition was just doing what the opposition does, or some other garbage. Now the exact same allegation comes to bear on someone you don't like and its time for revolution.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ah, there's the T99 we know and love with the complete deflection.

I see...so a thread about Redford skating by with what occurred and me commenting on it is a complete deflection? I clearly hit a nerve here, just proving what i said to be 100% true.

Of course this turns into what the Wildrose is doing, after all they're the ones acting like spoiled children stomping away when they don't get their way. But no, we should ignore that. Let's talk about the contract some more.

Seems to me the WR is acting.....like the opposition in a parliamentary procedure. It happens at every level when a perceived wrong doing occurs. Yes, they are doing their jobs. I want Albertans to know how entitled Redford and the Liberals have become. Its good to have it on the front page everyday. The woman lied in the legislature and that shouldnt be happening...even a liberal like you should agree with that.

I do enjoy that you brought up the federal CPC though. The same PM who was actually found in contempt of parliament last year! Remember that? You were one of the great defenders of him and basically brushed the issue aside because the opposition was just doing what the opposition does, or some other garbage. Now the exact same allegation comes to bear on someone you don't like and its time for revolution.

Firstly, here is the thread about that and i would thoroughly appreciate you pointing out where i defended Harper in that instance. Otherwise, your just making stuff up now. Though i do agree its the job of the opposition to make light of such things.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...arper+contempt

Secondly, I am hardly calling for a revolution, merely enjoying seeing Redford become exposed as the elitist. self-serving fraud i believe her to be. She is doing yeomans work in bringing the PC's into the spotlight for all the wrong reasons, and i suspect it will only continue as we move forward.

[transplant99]

It gets even better...not only were the WR (the official oppositio) shut down from asking anything related to tobacco....but the speaker allowed similar questions fro the "liberals" and the NDP.

Hmm...seems like that isnt very democratic, and i wonder if Slava will now label those MLA's as "spoiled children stomping away when they dont get their way" I dont think i will hold my breath waiting for that one.

OK, a rule is a rule. A privilege point is out of order until the Speaker makes a decision.

But then, Zwozdesky interpreted his own warning to include any mention of tobacco.

He even refused to hear demands for details of the contract, a point that had nothing to do with the Wildrose allegation that Redford misled the house about the decision.

And then, after cutting off virtually every Wildrose question, Zwozdesky allowed a couple of similar ones from the NDP and Liberals.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Br...#ixzz2E5yzQ9uq

[Resolute 14]

lol, no. Slava will just try to misdirect the discussion again by arguing some irrelevant point Brian Mulrooney or some other Conservative he hates did something, therefore it is fine for his beloved Redford to do whatever she pleases.


Speaking of conflict of interest, one of the goofiest things about our parliamentary system is how a Tory MLA can basically clear his own boss of conflict of interest charges.

[Slava]

You guys are hilarious. I'm just going to let this thread fall off the front page, or let you guys discuss amongst yourselves. I'm not defending Redford lying, though you might wish I was.

The part where the Wildrose acted like spoiled children was when they walked out of the legislature and made signs calling the speaker names. As you were though. I personally think that's quite childish and immature, but I suppose I'm alone in that.

Enjoy beating the non-issue to death. The political threads have gone so far downhill around here that I might as well avoid them entirely. Its the same tired name calling and lack of discussion. This isn't a martyr situation either, lest you think it is. I'm just plain tired of the partisanship. Let me explain. When the Wildrose questioned Horne and he didn't know the costs of the new clinics, that is an issue. To me that's absolutely ridiculous. Instead though we have all of the focus on this dumb tobacco case which is a couple of years old and a complete waste of time.

Anyway, as you were. I'm done.

[Resolute 14]

Your very first post in this thread was to try and misdirect the topic away from Redford's transgressions by trying to turn the topic into a partisan attack against both Harper and Wildrose. So if you are looking for reasons why political threads are going downhill, I suggest you step off your high horse long enough to go look in a mirror.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Dion

He has ties with the PC party being a former MLA. I would hardly call the decison unbiased. It should have been done by some independant.

He is a current PC MLA. The Speaker is always choosen from among the elected MLA's. Typically they are from the governing party - since they get to pick the Speaker.

My husband blogged on the speakers role today: http://corymorgan.com/license-to-lie/

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by transplant99

It gets even better...not only were the WR (the official oppositio) shut down from asking anything related to tobacco....but the speaker allowed similar questions fro the "liberals" and the NDP.

That's right. Plus both the Wildrose and NDP tried to ask for the Speakers' clarification of his guideline. He refused to provide clarification. In fact he completely cut off Rachel Notley from asking for clarification. It was appalling.

Some may not be aware, but the questions from Opposition are provided to the Governing party and Speaker PRIOR to question period. If the Speaker knew he was going to rule the questions out of order he should have advised them in the AM, not pull this ruling out right at the start of QP and apply it to only one party.

Sure the walking out of the Wildrose may have been a bit childish; but it drew attention to the seriousness of the Speakers (partisan) actions.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Speaking of conflict of interest, one of the goofiest things about our parliamentary system is how a Tory MLA can basically clear his own boss of conflict of interest charges.

Well since the Speaker by definition is a MLA, the Speaker either has to be from the governing party or from the opposition.

How would having a Speaker from the opposition fix things? The Speaker would then have to rule on matters concerning the leader of the opposition.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by First Lady

That's right. Plus both the Wildrose and NDP tried to ask for the Speakers' clarification of his guideline. He refused to provide clarification. In fact he completely cut off Rachel Notley from asking for clarification. It was appalling.

Some may not be aware, but the questions from Opposition are provided to the Governing party and Speaker PRIOR to question period. If the Speaker knew he was going to rule the questions out of order he should have advised them in the AM, not pull this ruling out right at the start of QP and apply it to only one party.

That points to a implemented strategy to try to wriggle out of this.

Originally Posted by First Lady

Sure the walking out of the Wildrose may have been a bit childish; but it drew attention to the seriousness of the Speakers (partisan) actions.

I think that this was the only way that Wildrose could illustrate dissatisfaction with the PC party and how things were handled. It also called to the forefront the fact that there is no point in doing business with this government.

What else are they going to do, they basically get slammed for doing thier job which is to question. they can't hold things up in votes being a minority. You might as well declare your distaste for this government and walk out in protest.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Slava

Anyway, as you were. I'm done.

Don't go.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that this was the only way that Wildrose could illustrate dissatisfaction with the PC party and how things were handled. It also called to the forefront the fact that there is no point in doing business with this government.

What else are they going to do, they basically get slammed for doing their job which is to question. they can't hold things up in votes being a minority. You might as well declare your distaste for this government and walk out in protest.

I think the Wildrose illustrated that there is no point doing business with the Wildrose. They tried to make a mountain out of a molehill and when it didn't go as planned, they literally stomped out of the room.

Their job as opposition is to hold the government to account and present a coherent alternative governing strategy. How does theatrically walking out of the legislature fulfill either of these jobs?

I'd be pretty disappointed with my kids if they pulled a Wildrose-like stunt. When things don't go your way, you don't throw a tantrum and pick up your ball and go home. You persist and rise above.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Plett25

I think the Wildrose illustrated that there is no point doing business with the Wildrose. They tried to make a mountain out of a molehill and when it didn't go as planned, they literally stomped out of the room.

Their job as opposition is to hold the government to account and present a coherent alternative governing strategy. How does theatrically walking out of the legislature fulfill either of these jobs?

I'd be pretty disappointed with my kids if they pulled a Wildrose-like stunt. When things don't go your way, you don't throw a tantrum and pick up your ball and go home. You persist and rise above.

How exactly do you propose that they do that? Their questions had been unilaterally cancelled, even after first proposing them to the speaker. AFAIK they aren't allowed to ad-lib new ones. The questions not dealing with the PC tobacco coverup were asked as per usual.

Pretty sure the wildrose 'stunt' has brought plenty of attention to the deplorable government behavior. Mission accomplished?