The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[the_only_turek_fan]

The hits just keep on coming:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03...back-she-says/

Although she is paying this money back...it seems that she is only paying it back because she got caught.



The sad thing is she will probably get re-elected.

[strombad]

Well it's her or Smith, so BLEGH to both.

[darklord700]

Alison doesn't get it. People did't care about the $45K splurge because of the money figure but because of her carefree attitude when it comes to managing money and financial resources. When she could have flown free with Harper, she chose an expensive first class flight instead.

And now she unneccessarily spilled the beans on her daugther and her higher up sleepover. This is comical.

[Titan]

I am not sure there is anything wrong with this. They did not go to disneyland. The question should be whether she should be taking the plane. If the answer is yes, adding another body or ten makes no material difference. If she should not be taking the plane, then that is the question that needs to be answered.

If it was someone that had a squeaky clean history then this would not be an issue.

[Cuz]

I am amazed this thread has only popped up now.

The thing that really amazes me is the public (seemingly) doesn't appear to be enraged by this obvious misuse of public funds. Regardless of Redford repaying the funds, she is only doing it because she got caught, and this is not the only instance of her using public funds in a less than diligent way...

[Northendzone]

lets face it, she is only paying this back because of the recent public opinion poll in which she scored low on.......

[Superflyer]

This part made me laugh

Redford, who became emotional at times, said it was about trying to balance the demands of parenthood with premiership.

“I’m the premier of Alberta, but I’m also the mother to a daughter who I love to spend time with,” she said. “I think many mothers can relate to that, and I don’t always get to do that.”

Way to try for sympathy.

[nik-]

Still better than the Wild Rednecks.

She does suck though, and if the PC membership was more shrewd, they would have replaced her at the last leadership convention instead of doubling down.

[Regular_John]

To her credit she's finally starting owning up to her missteps & these unnecessary expenses.

Up to this point she's been trying to play dumb "Oh.. I didn't realize a private jet cost that much." which to me was much more offensive than the cost itself. It would be one thing for her to say "I felt it was important to be at [X] event and the cost were appropriate for the amount of people we were transporting.".

But instead she's been clamming up and attempting to direct the blame elsewhere while claiming she was completely ignorant of the cost and the decision making/planning that goes into her travel.

Even the "My travel schedule makes it hard to spend time with my family, I felt it was important to include them and their friends" is a better answer than pleading ignorance of the cost of running a private jet.

Having said that, still think she's a horrible premier and I wish there was a viable alternative.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

lets face it, she is only paying this back because of the recent public opinion poll in which she scored low on.......

That and the Tories are getting pummeled in recent polls. Wildrose is even leading in Edmonton according to the latest Leger poll, with Redford and the Tories sitting third.

This is, of course, an inter-election poll, and one that was done online. So many large grains of salt must be taken. But if there is any dissent within the Tory caucus, it is pretty damning for Redford.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I don't see any scenario in which she's the party leader going into the next election. The entire drag on the PCs numbers is due to her personally. Keeping her as leader in the next election would be a death sentence to the party, and I think they realize that. Question is, who replaces her?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Titan

I am not sure there is anything wrong with this. They did not go to disneyland.

Bringing your daughter as well as the daughter's friend along on business trips should not be on the taxpayers' expense. Period.

As of yesterday, she agreed to pay back the amount for the daughter's friend, but not her daughter. To me this proves she still doesn't "get it." Bringing her daughter is a choice. She chose to run for premier; knowing the job requirements.

I have made career choices based upon family; so I get that family is important. It also means I didn't accept a job that would take me away from my family too much.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Bringing your daughter as well as the daughter's friend along on business trips should not be on the taxpayers' expense. Period.

As of yesterday, she agreed to pay back the amount for the daughter's friend, but not her daughter. To me this proves she still doesn't "get it." Bringing her daughter is a choice. She chose to run for premier; knowing the job requirements.

I have made career choices based upon family; so I get that family is important. It also means I didn't accept a job that would take me away from my family too much.

To be clear I am not defending her.

But what was the cost to the taxpayer?

For example, if I have to drive to Edmonton, I rent a car and my business pays for it. I take my kid as we will visit relatives after my work stuff is done. I have her bring a friend so they can entertain each other while I am working. Where is the additional cost to my employer? I am just not seeing it.

Expensing the burger in Edmonton for kid and friend is offside I guess. But transportation only, there is no material extra cost.

[MoneyGuy]

I'm thinking Redford will be done before long. They should have selected Horner.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by ken0042

As of yesterday, she agreed to pay back the amount for the daughter's friend, but not her daughter. To me this proves she still doesn't "get it." Bringing her daughter is a choice.

I do agree with this unless there is a stipulation that politicos can bring spouses. I know sometimes work will let wives come along and pay. It seems there may be details we are missing but on the surface I agree.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by ken0042

As of yesterday, she agreed to pay back the amount for the daughter's friend, but not her daughter. To me this proves she still doesn't "get it." Bringing her daughter is a choice.

I do agree with this unless there is a stipulation that politicos can bring spouses/family. I know sometimes work will let wives come along and pay for it as well for example. It seems there may be details we are missing but on the surface I agree.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Titan

To be clear I am not defending her.

But what was the cost to the taxpayer?

For example, if I have to drive to Edmonton, I rent a car and my business pays for it.

I believe in the "bring a friend" case, they were flying commercial.

If they weren't; and had a charter plane, the question becomes did she charter a plane instead of flying first class so she could get away with bringing extra people along?

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Titan

To be clear I am not defending her.

But what was the cost to the taxpayer?

For example, if I have to drive to Edmonton, I rent a car and my business pays for it. I take my kid as we will visit relatives after my work stuff is done. I have her bring a friend so they can entertain each other while I am working. Where is the additional cost to my employer? I am just not seeing it.

Expensing the burger in Edmonton for kid and friend is offside I guess. But transportation only, there is no material extra cost.

Taking the car is different though, because it doesn't cost extra. If you were flying to Edmonton, would your company pay for your kid and their friend to fly with you? I highly doubt it. And whether the amount is material or not is irrelevant. The fact is, she charged something extra that she shouldn't have.

[La Flames Fan]

While not the smartest PR move on her part, this is all media driven faux-outrage. When questionable charges into the high hundred-thousands or millions start hitting the books let me know...otherwise the $0.12 extra on my taxes isn't something to get all frothy about.

Policy, budgets, real issues should be front page news, not who she took on a trip.

[Resolute 14]

Chances are pretty good that Redford's inappropriate expenses are going to hit the high hundred thousands or millions when all of these attempts to cheat taxpayers are added up. Hell, just two flights alone have totaled $50k. How many other times has she used government resources for her personal, family or family friends to fly around?