The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

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

I think they're locked into election mode with Alison now, and there's probably more then a few Conservatives that are willing to basically throw that election if it gets rid of Redford who has been an absolute disaster as the head of that party and as the Premiere.

For me she's tough to get a read on, I know that she's not a stupid woman, but there are times when she acts like it.

I've heard stories that her office staff loathes her because of her mean spirited ness, she doesn't have control over the budget right now which is the most confusing thing ever and she comes across as incredibly self entitled.

Basically the Conservatives are the what 2009 Flames, while they still look decent on paper, its pretty well time to burn that party down and start the rebuild.

The problem is that they don't have a suitable replacement player in the party, Horner has the stink of Redford all over him, and his budget work is questionable at best.

Jonathan Denis was a guy that I voted for and chatted with and had respect for, but I just can't vote for him again, and he's got Alison stink on him too.

Maybe Alberta politics will get interesting again.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by 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?

If you divide $45,000 by half the estimated Alberta population it works out to $0.02 per person. I know that's not mathematically how it works, but it's a lot of outrage over something that doesn't even exist anymore...pennies.

I agree with you if it starts to get into that millions, then yes, there's a problem that needs to be addressed, but if this is all the media can dig up (and no doubt they'd dig up more if they could) then it's Fox News type click fodder and faux-outrage. IMO.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Titan

But what was the cost to the taxpayer?

Why did Redford agree to payback the flight for her daughter's friend even if the cost to taxpayer is substantially nil?

If is not frown upon when a business traveller let his family stay in the same hotel room on a buisness trip.

What this shows is that people do not like the elistist attitude Alison has shown ever since she took the leadership role. And it is not just for this instance but many transgression before this.

Still I think it is really dumb for her to disclose these little trips when all people were questioning was her SA trip. What was she thinking? This is a media disaster that she created by disclosing these higher up play dates totally unneccessarily. Did she just fire her media guy? And this one isn't any better.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

If you divide $45,000 by half the estimated Alberta population it works out to $0.02 per person. I know that's not mathematically how it works, but it's a lot of outrage over something that doesn't even exist anymore...pennies.

I agree with you if it starts to get into that millions, then yes, there's a problem that needs to be addressed, but if this is all the media can dig up (and no doubt they'd dig up more if they could) then it's Fox News type click fodder and faux-outrage. IMO.

A penny here and a penny there and soon your talking about real money. This is about not only wasteful spending, but its about trust, and Redford is coming across as extremely un-trustworthy.

She's acting like a criminal who is only sorry because they got caught and they're hoping that people will go easy because they "apologized"

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

If you divide $45,000 by half the estimated Alberta population it works out to $0.02 per person. I know that's not mathematically how it works, but it's a lot of outrage over something that doesn't even exist anymore...pennies.

I agree with you if it starts to get into that millions, then yes, there's a problem that needs to be addressed, but if this is all the media can dig up (and no doubt they'd dig up more if they could) then it's Fox News type click fodder and faux-outrage. IMO.

The problem that I see is that there are thousands of managers in the Alberta government who all see the things that go on above them.
When they get the signal from above that lavish expenses are okay if you have a reason then everyone below will act the same way.
Other ministers and managers have to be in two places at once so maybe they take the more expensive travel option because what they are doing is important. Or they also travel a lot for work and like their children so they bring them along as well. It isn't like Redford is the only parent in the government.

This is how you end up with AHS heads expending thousands of dollars on fancy dinners and other perks that then need because they are busy at work and also important.

[Wormius]

I find it a little disagreeable that she thinks flying her family members with her, paid for by taxpayer dollars is okay. I don't think any public or private sector employees get such perks when they travel. She should be paying that and whatever related expenses back as well..

[GP_Matt]

I can bring my wife to an annual conference and work pays for her meals but we always drive there so there is no flight charges. I think we do have one person come who flies in and brings his wife so I would assume that the company pays for both flights.
The conference is setup to encourage spousal attendance and they usually plan things for the wives (and one husband) to do during the day.

At other meetings though people occasionally bring their families but I would be shocked to learn that the company is paying for it.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

The problem that I see is that there are thousands of managers in the Alberta government who all see the things that go on above them.
When they get the signal from above that lavish expenses are okay if you have a reason then everyone below will act the same way.
Other ministers and managers have to be in two places at once so maybe they take the more expensive travel option because what they are doing is important. Or they also travel a lot for work and like their children so they bring them along as well. It isn't like Redford is the only parent in the government.

This is how you end up with AHS heads expending thousands of dollars on fancy dinners and other perks that then need because they are busy at work and also important.

I can see how this makes sense. Precedence. I suppose I'm looking at it too narrowly, and not at the bigger picture.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

If you divide $45,000 by half the estimated Alberta population it works out to $0.02 per person. I know that's not mathematically how it works, but it's a lot of outrage over something that doesn't even exist anymore...pennies.

I agree with you if it starts to get into that millions, then yes, there's a problem that needs to be addressed, but if this is all the media can dig up (and no doubt they'd dig up more if they could) then it's Fox News type click fodder and faux-outrage. IMO.

The problem is that as a conservative, it's her job to be fiscally responsible. She can't even manage that for her own expenses, let alone the expenses of the thousands of employees below her. The trickle down effect; she's sloughing off $5000 in travel expenses for her daughter's friend, what else is she trying to have covered? Where are the checks and balances for her actions if she can't be trusted to ensure her expenses are government related only?

She willingly and knowingly filed an expense claim for flights for her friend's daughter. How many other ministers have done similar based on her example? It's not like she can say they aren't legitimate claims when she herself made the same kinds... It's an awful precedent for a government to set when they're the ones who are supposed to be fiscally conservative.

[darklord700]

"Opposition MLAs seemed bewildered by Redford's announcements.

Wildrose Finance Critic Rob Anderson said the auditor general doesn't need to get involved and pointed out that not a single MLA has ever taken issue with Redford's daughter flying with her on government business."

That's exactly what I thought. People are not asking about her daugther and her play pal but Alison's own unneccessarily expensive travel habit. Why Alison chose to bring her daugther in is beyond me.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by darklord700

"Opposition MLAs seemed bewildered by Redford's announcements.

Wildrose Finance Critic Rob Anderson said the auditor general doesn't need to get involved and pointed out that not a single MLA has ever taken issue with Redford's daughter flying with her on government business."

That's exactly what I thought. People are not asking about her daugther and her play pal but Alison's own unneccessarily expensive travel habit. Why Alison chose to bring her daugther in is beyond me.

To divert, divert, and divert.

Or, in other words, offer up a semi-bad news story so that the really-bad news story gets ignored or buried.

[darklord700]

It's a stupendously dumb move. It's like telling people she stole $100 to prove she didn't steal $1000.

[c.t.ner]

I was cautious late last year, but now I personally don't see how Redford enters into the next election as head of the PCs. While two years is an eternity in politics, it will take a miracle of god for Redford to reverse this out of touch "witch" image in two years. I've met her briefly a couple of times and I don't think it's necessarily warranted, but politics is all about image - just Michael Ignatiff or Stephen Dion.

And to be honest the Wildrose have done a good job of focusing on this rather than policy, they're campaigning to a T. It also doesn't help that the PCs have absolutely dropped the ball on the communications front. It seems like they're stuck in the 1990s in regards to dealing on the PR front. Things like the London Olympics and the Tourism deals, The India Trade deals, etc., should PR slam dunks, but on each one they've bungled the narrative.

You combine some questionable policy initiatives (the confusing drinking law and the random over the top attack on public sector workers), an outdated PR action plan and a hard hitting opposition means it's pretty much the end of Redford as leader.

It'll be an interesting few years.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by darklord700

It's a stupendously dumb move. It's like telling people she stole $100 to prove she didn't steal $1000.

Not quite.

It is like telling people that she stole $100 so that the people will not realize that she stole $1,000 (since all of their attention will be on the $100).

[killer_carlson]

The PCs can't remove Redford.

What will they say to the electorate:

"We removed Ralph and chose Ed, but we got that wrong so we removed him and brought in Alison, and we got that wrong so PLEEEEEEEASE trust us this time, we got it right?"

This would be the THIRD removal of a premier since 2006. Redford knows this and knows her party won't dump her.

They also have emptied the donor wallets with the perpetual (or so it seems) leadership races and then the actual elections.

The PC supporters who are propping up this government better start calling in their IOUs because they are going to be worthless in 2 years.

(Of course, the more they do call in the IOU, the more it plays to the opposition calling out patronage; yet the more the PCs don't honour them, the more it drives their own supporters away)


Back to question period, the Herald and the Sun are both reporting the shocking lack of rebuke from the PC caucus towards the opposition drilling Redford. No shouting back, limp desk pounding (at best) when Redford speaks to defend herself.

[CaptainCrunch]

They were working on their resumes

[darklord700]

Wildrose should back off from attacking Redford. After all, Redford is Wildrose's best chance of winning the election in 2 years.

[Mr.Coffee]

these moves strike me as either unethical or incompetent. Either one is bad.

[Dion]

Many of Redford’s ministers and MLAs are deeply unhappy, to the point where a few have apparently mused about leaving the Progressive Conservative fold to sit as independents.

Some in government and the PC party also speculate privately that Redford’s time as premier might be coming to an end.

One senior Tory said Wednesday, asking not to be named, “we’re doing a lot of great stuff here, and nobody knows or cares because of all this crap. It can’t go on like this.”

But a consensus is forming that if Redford doesn’t soon boost her approval rating well above the current 20 per cent, and her party’s above 25, she won’t lead the Progressive Conservatives into the next election in 2016.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...989/story.html

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Wildrose should back off from attacking Redford. After all, Redford is Wildrose's best chance of winning the election in 2 years.

Bit of a fine line, isn't it? Attack hard enough to keep the pressure on, but not hard enough that it helps lead to a PC revolt and a potentially stronger leader.

Anyway, Redford admits that she knew she was improperly using the public purse as her personal piggy bank, but argues that the rules should be changed to benefit her:

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Alb...131/story.html

I wonder at what point entitlement becomes corruption?