The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Stelmach had a strong track record as a Minister and had done very well as intergovernmenal affairs portfolio. His success did not transfer to the Premier's office. And no one ever questioned Stelmach's character. Not even the opposition.

The thing people are not talking about as much in the Redford scandal - especially when bringing up Klein - is that Redford campaigned and was elected as an "Elite" rather than a regular Martha and Henry. When elite, the tolerance for boneheadedness is virtually zero.

Stelmach's character was questioned a lot in Grande Prairie when he announced that the new hospital was going to be named after the guy who gave him a kidney. Something that was roundly defended by the PC party before being overturned by Allison who said the government doesn't even name hospitals. That is the role of the AHS board.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

I find it funny some of you people want to compare elected government jobs to the private sector. Guess what? These aren't remotely comparable. The private sector will ALWAYS pay more and it should. If people are running for office for the money, well we're more screwed than I thought. Most of these people have come from the private sector and are rich already.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by darklord700

The report didn't offer any new damning material so why did Hancock call the cops on Redford?

Maybe it is Hancock's way to wash his hands off of this and let the cops deal with it. Once this is in the hands of the cops, he wouldn't need to response to this anymore.

Someone had a good answer to that a few pages back - and I think your second paragraph touches on the same concept. It is a good move politically. Hancock wants this all to go away, but he's caught in a catch-22 because if he calls the matter closed, the opposition will hammer him for protecting her. So let the RCMP review the file, and if they recommend no charges, Redford finally starts to fade into the sunset.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

3) I guess you don't consider $150k extremely well compensated. Good for you but it is, given the amount of work these people actually do. When a number ($150k) is only earned by 2-3% of a country's population, I'd say it's a lot of money.The average gross income in this country is what? 50-60k? Too lazy to look it up but that's probably close. Tripling that for a politician is outrageous. These people are supposed to represent us, not use our taxes to fund their lavish lifestyle. You may earn a lot of money judging by your post but I'd suggest it has skewed your view on that real economic situation faced by most Canadians is, therefore your view on what is 'well compensated' probably has no basis in reality (for 95% of the country anyway).

Do you honestly believe that being the Premier of a province of 4 million people, with tens of thousands of employees, and with annual revenue of over 40 billion dollars, is an "average" job? If not, why should it be compensated with an average salary?

For a bit a perspective, see here (sorry, couldn't copy-paste chart information): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle4243534/

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I find it funny some of you people want to compare elected government jobs to the private sector. Guess what? These aren't remotely comparable. The private sector will ALWAYS pay more and it should. If people are running for office for the money, well we're more screwed than I thought. Most of these people have come from the private sector and are rich already.

Why do you think that private sector boards of directors choose to pay high salaries to their top executives?

Why do you think those same boards of directors are not concerned that they are screwed if their CEO is only working "for the money"?

For the record, I'm not advocating that the Premier should earn $5,000,000/year like many Canadian CEOs do (although I do think that, optics and petty populist politics aside, one could make a reasonable argument for that.) However, I don't think that Alberta's Premier is paid very well. The Premier earns significantly less than a Provincial Court judge, for instance. That's ludicrous.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Why do you think that private sector boards of directors choose to pay high salaries to their top executives?

Why do you think those same boards of directors are not concerned that they are screwed if their CEO is only working "for the money"?

For the record, I'm not advocating that the Premier should earn $5,000,000/year like many Canadian CEOs do (although I do think that, optics and petty populist politics aside, one could make a reasonable argument for that.) However, I don't think that Alberta's Premier is paid very well. The Premier earns significantly less than a Provincial Court judge, for instance. That's ludicrous.

Also, the position pays about a third as much as Gary Mar has been receiving.
The real money seems to come from losing the leadership race. (I wonder if that is Lukaszuk's plan)

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I find it funny some of you people want to compare elected government jobs to the private sector. Guess what? These aren't remotely comparable. The private sector will ALWAYS pay more and it should. If people are running for office for the money, well we're more screwed than I thought. Most of these people have come from the private sector and are rich already.

Fine, people can earn more money in the private sector, but they are comparable. People have the option of deciding where to work. So lets say you want all of our politicians to make $50-60k, which you seem to imply. What kind of candidates do you think that you would get? Next you plan on not letting them expense anything...which is really attractive as a selling point to get people interested in public service.

But, before we get too far into this stupidity let me ask you the million dollar question. If its so easy for so much money, why aren't you running and getting paid that?

[ZedMan]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Most of these people have come from the private sector and are rich already.

If you actually bothered to look at the elected MLAs you'd see there's actually a pretty wide spectrum.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Why do you think that private sector boards of directors choose to pay high salaries to their top executives?

Why do you think those same boards of directors are not concerned that they are screwed if their CEO is only working "for the money"?

For the record, I'm not advocating that the Premier should earn $5,000,000/year like many Canadian CEOs do (although I do think that, optics and petty populist politics aside, one could make a reasonable argument for that.) However, I don't think that Alberta's Premier is paid very well. The Premier earns significantly less than a Provincial Court judge, for instance. That's ludicrous.

TBQH you bring up some good points. I guess we differ on what is an acceptable range of pay for someone in that position, different perspectives and all that. To clarify I don't have issues with the 150k (I do think it's fair, not overpaid) as I have issues with the always wanting more $$$ and the constant scandals at all levels of government that always boil down to $$$. It's all about me, me, me and I think this thinking will eventually catch up with us IMO.

I just think for as much as a BoD doesn't want a CEO who cares only for the money that is magnified ten fold for someone working for the government. It's something someone who has achieved a lot in life already should want to do to benefit their society and country for providing them the conditions to succeed. A way of giving back if you will. Not that they should do it for free, far from it, I just don't think it should be as about the money as the private sector is. That's short term thinking and we need people in charge who actually care about the future of this country more than their own pocket books. We need successful, smart people with experience to want to help this country prosper, to be more concerned about their legacy than $$$. It will never happen I know, it's all idealistic nonsense. Can't change human nature and all that. I guess I'm just incredibly jaded to our whole political system :/

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I find it funny some of you people want to compare elected government jobs to the private sector. Guess what? These aren't remotely comparable. The private sector will ALWAYS pay more and it should. If people are running for office for the money, well we're more screwed than I thought. Most of these people have come from the private sector and are rich already.

Wait a second, so basically anyone who gets into politics shouldn't be compensated for a high stress, high commitment position, because they should already rich. Sounds like a great way to encourage democracy and encourage the best and the brightest to get represent the people, regardless of their income bracket.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Slava

Fine, people can earn more money in the private sector, but they are comparable. People have the option of deciding where to work. So lets say you want all of our politicians to make $50-60k, which you seem to imply. What kind of candidates do you think that you would get? Next you plan on not letting them expense anything...which is really attractive as a selling point to get people interested in public service.

But, before we get too far into this stupidity let me ask you the million dollar question. If its so easy for so much money, why aren't you running and getting paid that?

No I'm not meaning to imply they need make the average. If you actually read what I wrote no where did I say that. But I'm done with you, don't need the personal insults.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You are blurring the lines between private sector vs public. Yes meal costs and expenses should be covered but even with private companies they are scrutinized as expense reports have to be filled out with specifics. It seems like Redford had blank cheques and nobody to answer to. Last I heard it's not normal even for executives to fly around family on company dime.

You are blurring the lines with my comment (which was about expense claims in general) with Redford's inappropriate expenses in specific. Fire of the Phoenix started this tangent when he said the following:

The whole idea of defending government officials for expensing personal obligations via public money (any amount) is truly funny. These are all (mostly) individuals who are very wealthy before being elected and then are compensated quite well while in office too (they also get bloated pensions for their new 'career'). The fact that they can't pay their own relatively modest obligations (a $200 meal, $4000 lawyer dues, etc) is quite telling.

[...]

Why can't they pay their own way?

That's just an incredibly stupid thing to say. Redford's misuse of public funds is inexcusable, but that doesn't at all mean that public officials should be forced to personally pay for travel, meals, etc. incurred while conducting government business, which is what Fire of the Phoenix was suggesting.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by ZedMan

If you actually bothered to look at the elected MLAs you'd see there's actually a pretty wide spectrum.

I was definitely guilty of oversimplifying, my bad.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Wait a second, so basically anyone who gets into politics shouldn't be compensated for a high stress, high commitment position, because they should already rich. Sounds like a great way to encourage democracy and encourage the best and the brightest to get represent the people, regardless of their income bracket.

I said above I was guilty of oversimplifying for sure, should have thought it out a bit more. How about this: Corruption is handled a little too neatly in Canadian politics. Fine pay them their money, but how about 2x jail sentences for those who breach the public trust and are guilty of corruption. Would never happen because currently we pay off people to make political problems go away for the most part.

Is $$$ really the only way to encourage smart, honest, ethical people to want to lead the country? Honest question. Why don't we just triple or quadruple the current pay scale then? or even 10x? What's the magic #? Will that fix all our problems with current political leadership and make the scandals go away? What can we give them so we'll get people that care about the country and are competent at the same time?

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Her trip to Vancouver for a family funeral was booked on government aircraft, and only later did the former premier book two meetings there.

The witch hunt leads right to the witch at the top. No more pleading ignorance.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You are blurring the lines with my comment (which was about expense claims in general) with Redford's inappropriate expenses in specific. Fire of the Phoenix started this tangent when he said the following:



That's just an incredibly stupid thing to say. Redford's misuse of public funds is inexcusable, but that doesn't at all mean that public officials should be forced to personally pay for travel, meals, etc. incurred while conducting government business, which is what Fire of the Phoenix was suggesting.

Pay for travel? where did I say that? Way to crop my post to take it out of context so you could put words in my mouth though. I agree with some expenses covered, but I just believe that others shouldn't. Do you honestly think that I said/think they should pay for flights for official business? Meals are a joke, I've always thought that. You're going to have to eat anyway, who cares if it's business. Never understood that one. Unless it's some sort of official function. Two people having dinner and they spend 5 mins talking about business and now it's a free meal. Yeah, that seems totally legit. I don't agree with lawyers fees being paid for either by the government either.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Her trip to Vancouver for a family funeral was booked on government aircraft, and only later did the former premier book two meetings there.

The witch hunt leads right to the witch at the top. No more pleading ignorance.

I have no problem with the witch hunt when you see voodoo dolls everywhere.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Meals are a joke, I've always thought that. You're going to have to eat anyway, who cares if it's business. Never understood that one.

Because eating groceries at home and eating at a restaurant while traveling totally cost the same amount, amirite?

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Because eating groceries at home and eating at a restaurant while traveling totally cost the same amount, amirite?

Because the only way to have a business meeting is at a restaurant, amirite? And you have to eat just then too, can't eat before and discuss things over a couple of drinks that you pay for yourself. There is just no other way to provide sustenance for your body AND talk business unless it's during a $200 meal that you didn't pay for.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Because the only way to have a business meeting is at a restaurant, amirite? And you have to eat just then too, can't eat before and discuss things over a couple of drinks that you pay for yourself. There is just no other way to provide sustenance for your body AND talk business except over a $200 meal with cocktails.

So if I take you to a restaurant and buy you dinner for business talks, I should just eat that cost out of pocket?