The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[killer_carlson]

After being asked if they should soften on Redford to wait for another election year, Danielle Smith mused last year at an event in Edmonton:

"as good as Premier Redford has been for the Wildrose, imagine how good it would be with Premier Thomas Lukazik"

[burn_this_city]

She's tone deaf and oblivious to public perception. I think overall she's a decent premier, but the optics of all this look terrible when she's supposedly a fiscal conservative. I'm still not sold on the WR, people like First Lady and her husband have turned me off their brand of amateur #### disturber politics.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

She's tone deaf and oblivious to public perception. I think overall she's a decent premier, but the optics of all this look terrible when she's supposedly a fiscal conservative. I'm still not sold on the WR, people like First Lady and her husband have turned me off their brand of amateur #### disturber politics.

I don't think she's all that great as a premiere, I think she's self entitled and spoiled, and I if she was good as a lawyer for the UN I think its important that she returns to that job as soon as possible.

The optics of this premiere are off the chart bad, she's not a consensus builder.

The unfortunate thing is that I'm personally trapped, I utterly can't vote for this party in the next election, because I'm turned off on the PC leadership, and I'm utterly turned off on my MLA.

I can't vote for Mason, because frankly I like the guy, but I don't agree with his philosophy. I can't vote Liveral because its a dead party.

Wildrose is probably my only option, but I would have to see what their platform and policy is during the election.

If only Doug Henning was still around with his transcendental party

[darklord700]

I thought Alison did OK in promoting Keystone but other than that all I remembered from Alison was about how much she abused the public purse and whether the PC MLA should pay back thousands from those no meet committee earnings.

I bet there're a lot of perks serving in the UN so Alison is used to those kind of thing and being the premier should only enhance them by her book.

The province is on course for a train wreck and by the time Alison is done, how many billions in debt will we be?

[troutman]

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.

+1 - they want her to still be leader to have any chance.

[Dion]

[darklord700]

How can you borrow $5 billion and call it a surplus like Horner does with the 2014 AB budget? Even if this woman is done in two years, we'll be over $21B in debt while continue to enjoy years of budget surpluses of course.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by darklord700

How can you borrow $5 billion and call it a surplus like Horner does with the 2014 AB budget? Even if this woman is done in two years, we'll be over $21B in debt while continue to enjoy years of budget surpluses of course.

They're taking a lot of flack for that budget too because it requires you to defy logic in order to make it work.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

How can you borrow $5 billion and call it a surplus like Horner does with the 2014 AB budget? Even if this woman is done in two years, we'll be over $21B in debt while continue to enjoy years of budget surpluses of course.

I haven't looked at the budget, so I have no idea, but is it because the operating budget balances and they are borrowing for capital projects?

It's sort of how Klein had a balanced budget and was using P3s for everything. It was basically just off balance sheet financing.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

I haven't looked at the budget, so I have no idea, but is it because the operating budget balances and they are borrowing for capital projects?

It's sort of how Klein had a balanced budget and was using P3s for everything. It was basically just off balance sheet financing.

So you're saying that when Klein declared Alberta to be debt free back in 2004 it was a lie and he was just fudging the books?

Alberta is now debt-free, due in part to the high price of oil and gas. "Today I'm very, very proud to announce that Alberta has slain its debt," Premier Ralph Klein said on Monday in Calgary.

"Never again will this government or the people of this province have to set aside another tax dollar on debt," Klein said.

"Those days are over and they're over for good, as far as my government is concerned, and if need be we will put in place legislation to make sure that we never have a debt again," he added.

The province eliminated its $3-billion debt by using a big surplus in this year's budget from high oil and gas revenues. In June, the province said its 2003-2004 budget surplus stood at $4 billion.

Ten years ago, Alberta's debt stood at $23 billion. Almost all of that debt was run up between 1982 and 1992, when oil prices crashed.

A rebound in prices, however, has led to big provincial surpluses since the mid-1990s.

The move makes Alberta the only province with no debt. The last province to say it was debt-free was British Columbia in the late 1960s.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/albe...-free-1.516753

P.S. What ever happened to that promised legislation?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So you're saying that when Klein declared Alberta to be debt free back in 2004 it was a lie and he was just fudging the books?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/albe...-free-1.516753

P.S. What ever happened to that promised legislation?

I'm saying we were still borrowing money it was just called something else. I know that doesn't make it a popular thing to point out, but we didn't suddenly pay cash for everything.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Rerun

P.S. What ever happened to that promised legislation?

Just going off memory but I think there was a law passed under Klein but it was either rescinded or ammended when they went back in to debt. Under Stelmach?

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm saying we were still borrowing money it was just called something else. I know that doesn't make it a popular thing to point out, but we didn't suddenly pay cash for everything.

This my understanding of the current situation as well. The Operating Budget is in surplus but they are borrowing for capital projects. The justification I've heard is that the borrowing for capital projects does not count towards the deficit as you gain an actual asset (a road, school, hospital etc.).

I think it's completely wrong and doesn't make a whole lot of real world sense. I understand that a road or a building is a physical asset but in no way does it have any real world value. The province isn't going to sell a school or a hospital during its useful life so the value just isn't there. When you look at the life of the infrastructure you don't end up with a paid off asset, you end up with something that is then going to cost you to replace. I even thought I heard Horner make an off the cuff remark a couple of weeks ago about they could sell the Anthony Henday in Edmonton tomorrow if they really wanted to.

[Rerun]

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook... (I so agree with it)

I'm not a person who gets into politic's BUT........Alison Redford just slapped the face of most working single mothers !! She wants this struggling sector of Canadian taxpayers to give their taxes to making sure that SHE gets to spend time with her daughter because SHE works a lot !!! Are you frigging kidding me ...... Because of the position she holds , she is paid a LOT of money which in turns gives her the means to easily pay for her daughter to accompany her.......not the same as most struggling single mothers who also would like to spend more time with their children but they can barely make ends meet with their money and their time. Alison.............you are way out of touch and you should be ashamed of yourself for pulling that card ......

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Hanni

This my understanding of the current situation as well. The Operating Budget is in surplus but they are borrowing for capital projects. The justification I've heard is that the borrowing for capital projects does not count towards the deficit as you gain an actual asset (a road, school, hospital etc.).

I think it's completely wrong and doesn't make a whole lot of real world sense. I understand that a road or a building is a physical asset but in no way does it have any real world value. The province isn't going to sell a school or a hospital during its useful life so the value just isn't there. When you look at the life of the infrastructure you don't end up with a paid off asset, you end up with something that is then going to cost you to replace. I even thought I heard Horner make an off the cuff remark a couple of weeks ago about they could sell the Anthony Henday in Edmonton tomorrow if they really wanted to.

Ya and that's all I was saying. I'm not defending it, just saying that this is probably why we can borrow more and still have a balanced budget.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Hanni

This my understanding of the current situation as well. The Operating Budget is in surplus but they are borrowing for capital projects. The justification I've heard is that the borrowing for capital projects does not count towards the deficit as you gain an actual asset (a road, school, hospital etc.).

The laws that Jim Dinning put in for accountability and transparency were repealed so that they could essentially 'cook the books' concerning not only capital projects, but existing infrastructure. This was gearing up to be a big story in the papers heading towards the budget, but disappeared when the travelgate story popped up. There were several stories in the paper concerning the possible misuse of reporting concerning the budget.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...771/story.html

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...399/story.html

I would love to see a reporter delve into the mess that is the royalty process for our oil and gas reserves as well, but I'm pretty sure reporters are an extinct species as we once knew them.

I wish this was a bigger story though.

[postman56]

What part of 80% disapproval does our Madame not understand? Seems like the only 20% were members of her inner cabinet that are too afraid their own squandering will be exposed.!!l
We all know there are loads more smelly travel expenses to come out whether it's her own or any from her close band of crooks. PC's have run a muck too long in this province and these clowns will finally be done in 2015!

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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?

She is so disconnected that she doesn't even see that every family now has to make choices to balance career and family. If I go away for a week on business I don't get to fly my wife and daughter with me on the company's dime.

If she isn't comfortable with the balance that her job demands of her - she should quit.

[Daradon]

So I wonder what it would take for people to consider the Liberal Party provincially. As I've argued fairly well in other threads, the days of the stereotypes of conservatives cutting taxes and saving, and liberals taxing and spending, are far gone. The Redford government being one of the biggest examples of this actually. Cause I don't like this story but I was ready to throw in the towel with this government 3 months after they were re-elected anyway. But the Wildrose just don't seem ready to lead, or even have enough experience to be effective. It's not some of the crazy right wing things they've said and done which scare me the most, which were bad enough. But, in looking at their platform it became apparent that they have NO CLUE how a budget works. Promising all these crazy things, and yet saving money?

Unfortunately I think we've got too many Sun reading voters in this province that still think right wing = fiscally sound derp derp, left wing = tax and spend derp derp.

I'm not even sure the terms right and left wing really apply to any of the parties in a fiscal sense anymore to be completely honest.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Daradon

So I wonder what it would take for people to consider the Liberal Party provincially.

Absolutely toxic brand, they are morons for not changing their name a decade ago.

Originally Posted by Daradon

As I've argued fairly well in other threads, the days of the stereotypes of conservatives cutting taxes and saving, and liberals taxing and spending, are far gone. The Redford government being one of the biggest examples of this actually.

The PC's haven't been "Conservative" since the early Klein days. Redford is as Liberal as they get in Alberta.

Originally Posted by Daradon

Cause I don't like this story but I was ready to throw in the towel with this government 3 months after they were re-elected anyway. But the Wildrose just don't seem ready to lead, or even have enough experience to be effective.

Theoretically nobody but the PC's have the experience to lead, they have been the ruling party since 1971.

Originally Posted by Daradon

It's not some of the crazy right wing things they've said and done which scare me the most, which were bad enough. But, in looking at their platform it became apparent that they have NO CLUE how a budget works. Promising all these crazy things, and yet saving money?

Every party last election promised bulls**t, the PC's promised balanced budgets, how did that work out?

Originally Posted by Daradon

Unfortunately I think we've got too many Sun reading voters in this province that still think right wing = fiscally sound derp derp, left wing = tax and spend derp derp.

I'm not even sure the terms right and left wing really apply to any of the parties in a fiscal sense anymore to be completely honest.

Lame.