Redford's trip to South Africa cost Alta taxpayers $45,000

[Resolute 14]

Ahh yes, a typical Alberta politics thread

-Rerun trashes Redford
-KelVarnson trashes Rerun
-Slava blindly defends the liberal (in PC colours)
-and hell, I criticize the liberal (in PC colours)

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Sorry, I was thinking of a different expression. "Look after your pennies, and your dollars will look after themselves."

No problem. I couldn't think of anyway to really defend Rutherford on this story, so this was the only contribution I could really make to the thread.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Alta is old school. It was the actual abbreviation if I'm not mistaken. Like Sask, Man and Ont.

Both are correct depending on context. "AB" is the abbreviation used by Canada Post for mailing addresses. "Alta." is the abbreviation used in print journalism as recommended by the Canadian Press Style Guide.

Source: http://www.dal.ca/webteam/web_style_...v_numbers.html

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Is it still Harper's trip if the leader of the Opposition goes as well?
The differences though are that heads of state are expected to attend things like this. It would have been seen as an insult if Harper snubbed the event.
As well, the Harper trip was booked first and Redford was offered a seat on that trip with all expenses paid. All she needed to do was get to Ottawa and back but she turned that trip into $45000 because she didn't want to be inconvenienced by having to sit in first class with the public.

So Harper's spending isn't worth wondering about? Why hasn't the cost of the South Africa or Israel trip been disclosed? Don't the taxpayers have a right to know? We're paying for them. Seems odd that he gets a complete pass.

In Harper you trust?

At least Redford disclosed her costs. Maybe that was her big mistake. Better to keep the taxpayers in the dark.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Ahh yes, a typical Alberta politics thread

-Rerun trashes Redford
-KelVarnson trashes Rerun
-Slava blindly defends the liberal (in PC colours)
-and hell, I criticize the liberal (in PC colours)

I don't mean to defend Redford here, so much as note that its just so meaningless. These travel threads for government always go this way though. People get bent out of shape for ridiculous costs. Here we have Dion comparing the cost of the wage to someones annual salary (because the two are clearly related), and in other threads its "How much for a coffee?!?!?! I can make that at home for a nickel, so the traveller should be responsible for everything above that!" Its really just a waste of time.

I knew before I typed anything last night that I shouldn't even bother. I should've used better judgement because these political threads are just such a complete waste of time, never mind my growing thought on politics alone.

[GP_Matt]

For me, I only have so much energy to dedicate to politics and as such don't really follow federal politics that much any more. If you want to start a thread about the Harper governments waste though I am sure there are others on this board who would love to weigh in.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't mean to defend Redford here, so much as note that its just so meaningless. These travel threads for government always go this way though. People get bent out of shape for ridiculous costs. Here we have Dion comparing the cost of the wage to someones annual salary (because the two are clearly related), and in other threads its "How much for a coffee?!?!?! I can make that at home for a nickel, so the traveller should be responsible for everything above that!" Its really just a waste of time.

I knew before I typed anything last night that I shouldn't even bother. I should've used better judgement because these political threads are just such a complete waste of time, never mind my growing thought on politics alone.

In isolation it may seem like a small matter but why people object to it is because it suggests at a larger problem is irresponsible spending, or more to the point - a lack of respect for the tax payer.

This is a pretty extreme example given that
- The expense is really high
- There were cheaper alternatives available
- Not one, but a series of bad decisions were made

Add that all up - and Redford deserves to be obliterated over this.

[Resolute 14]

Bad decisions made before, during and after, and with what cannot be considered anything but really flimsy lies to try and defuse anger/frustration at this mismanagement.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

So Harper's spending isn't worth wondering about? Why hasn't the cost of the South Africa or Israel trip been disclosed? Don't the taxpayers have a right to know? We're paying for them. Seems odd that he gets a complete pass.

In Harper you trust?

At least Redford disclosed her costs. Maybe that was her big mistake. Better to keep the taxpayers in the dark.

Do you expect the Prime Minister of the 7th wealthiest nation on the planet to go to this funeral on a commercial flight? C'mon.

The problem with Redford's spending is that she basically took the most convenient way to get to South Africa with no regard for cost for no other reason than convenience...that is ridiculous.

[darklord700]

$45K won't put AB in the poorhouse or get us out of it. But the wreckless way this woman is our money certainly will bankrupt us. I've just read a Calgary Herald article and in that the AB Finance minister Doug Horner said AB is technically no in debt becase what we own (the roads, schools etc) is more than what we owe (the debt). Give me a break.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't mean to defend Redford here, so much as note that its just so meaningless. These travel threads for government always go this way though. People get bent out of shape for ridiculous costs. Here we have Dion comparing the cost of the wage to someones annual salary (because the two are clearly related), and in other threads its "How much for a coffee?!?!?! I can make that at home for a nickel, so the traveller should be responsible for everything above that!" Its really just a waste of time.

I knew before I typed anything last night that I shouldn't even bother. I should've used better judgement because these political threads are just such a complete waste of time, never mind my growing thought on politics alone.

Slava, I think the point you're missing is that a lot of us work in the private sector, have to travel for business and actually have a fair amount of hurdles to jump through for accounting for our travel.

I work for a company where if I want to fly, I have to fly with a very specific criteria (airline restriction), if not, I have to make a case to my VP Finance as to why I should take another flight (cheaper, better times to get to the city, etc).

I have specific approved hotels I can stay at where our company has negoitated discounted rates.

I have specific restrictions on car rental - and if I want to exceed those, I need a good reason.

I have a $ meal limit as well.

I don't think this is uncommon, I'm sure others have examples too. People are being critical (at least I am) because I do make travel arrangements within parameters every single time I book it, with the goal to not be a drain on the company and to do it at a reasonable cost and be reasonably comfortable when doing it.

The government is the single largest employer in this province, and the people who elect them typically have to work with restriction similar to what I mentioned, but somehow, people elected into public office are now outside of that? That is why people are angry.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Slava, I think the point you're missing is that a lot of us work in the private sector, have to travel for business and actually have a fair amount of hurdles to jump through for accounting for our travel.

I work for a company where if I want to fly, I have to fly with a very specific criteria (airline restriction), if not, I have to make a case to my VP Finance as to why I should take another flight (cheaper, better times to get to the city, etc).

I have specific approved hotels I can stay at where our company has negoitated discounted rates.

I have specific restrictions on car rental - and if I want to exceed those, I need a good reason.

I have a $ meal limit as well.

I don't think this is uncommon, I'm sure others have examples too. People are being critical (at least I am) because I do make travel arrangements within parameters every single time I book it, with the goal to not be a drain on the company and to do it at a reasonable cost and be reasonably comfortable when doing it.

The government is the single largest employer in this province, and the people who elect them typically have to work with restriction similar to what I mentioned, but somehow, people elected into public office are now outside of that? That is why people are angry.

Thing is I don't disagree with any of this. I have my own business and travel at times for business, and I obviously don't treat it as "no holds barred". All my point is here is that there are columns in the paper suggesting that there was a flight with a stop in Winnipeg that she could've taken, and frankly I wouldn't have chosen that myself. I also think its a case where its low hanging fruit.

The opposition has areas like the children dying in foster are which are far more important and concerning, and instead we have discussions about whether she should've taken a different flight, ordered a smaller orange juice. Its just so off-putting in general.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Slava, I think the point you're missing is that a lot of us work in the private sector, have to travel for business and actually have a fair amount of hurdles to jump through for accounting for our travel.

I work for a company where if I want to fly, I have to fly with a very specific criteria (airline restriction), if not, I have to make a case to my VP Finance as to why I should take another flight (cheaper, better times to get to the city, etc).

I have specific approved hotels I can stay at where our company has negoitated discounted rates.

I have specific restrictions on car rental - and if I want to exceed those, I need a good reason.

I have a $ meal limit as well.

I don't think this is uncommon, I'm sure others have examples too. People are being critical (at least I am) because I do make travel arrangements within parameters every single time I book it, with the goal to not be a drain on the company and to do it at a reasonable cost and be reasonably comfortable when doing it.

The government is the single largest employer in this province, and the people who elect them typically have to work with restriction similar to what I mentioned, but somehow, people elected into public office are now outside of that? That is why people are angry.

I think that a more fair comparison would be between Ms. Redford's travel budget and the travel budget of the CEO of your employer, or even better yet, the CEO of an organization as large as the Alberta government.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by fotze

I don't think she is lying over this. I think she's just an idiot. Not sure which is worse.

She may not be lying herself (though I suspect this is more a case of plausible deniability rather than outright ignorance), but the lies are coming from her office and that means she is still culpable. Exactly how the PM gets (and deserves) blame when the PMO does asinine things.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by fotze

They can be very wasteful but don't need to be. My old company, the CEO would fly all over the world in company jet. That stuff is certainly noticed when the employees are asked to cut costs. It may only cost $1,000,000 per year but it probably costs more than that in lost ideas from the peons.

Totally agree. I just wanted to make the point that, despite what some of the usual suspects might have you believe, expensive travel budgets are not a uniquely Redford or government phenomenon. Indeed, sometimes it may make sense to spend a lot on travel expenses if it means that a billion dollar agreement will be finalized more quickly or favourably. For example, if (hypothetically speaking), Ms. Redford's expensivr chartered flight enabled her to attend both Mandela's funeral and an important meeting with President Obama regarding the Keystone pipeline (that she otherwise would not have been able to attend), then I would absolutely support that sort of spending.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Totally agree. I just wanted to make the point that, despite what some of the usual suspects might have you believe, expensive travel budgets are not a uniquely Redford or government phenomenon. Indeed, sometimes it may make sense to spend a lot on travel expenses if it means that a billion dollar agreement will be finalized more quickly or favourably. For example, if (hypothetically speaking), Ms. Redford's expensivr chartered flight enabled her to attend both Mandela's funeral and an important meeting with President Obama regarding the Keystone pipeline (that she otherwise would not have been able to attend), then I would absolutely support that sort of spending.

Where do you stand if it means that she doesn't have to change planes in Winnipeg?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Where do you stand if it means that she doesn't have to change planes in Winnipeg?

If that is the only justification, I of course think that it was a complete waste of money. As others have already noted, it was (again, presuming no other justification) politically a very stupid decision (optics being as bad as they are.) Still, its not the sort of ad decision that should topple a government. Governments should be judged on the merits of the large legislative and policy decisions that they make, not minor administrative ones.

[Northendzone]

like many i was initially annoyed at this revelation; however, the reality is that it is a drop in the bucket and that the overall amount of money wasted by the government is atrocious.

to me Redford was awfully cavalier about the spend - I really wish the government would get back to common sense thinking and start guarding our tax dollars rather than flushing them away.....

Taking the aide seems even more wasteful; however, I am assuming tha the only place she goes without and aide is to the washroom or to sleep......

[Makarov]

Just for the sake of discussion, this will cost taxpayers far more than $45,000:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politic...trip-1.1643839

It may well be justified on a cost-benefit analysis, but one can't help but wonder why the business travellers couldn't justify paying their own travel costs on their own cost-benefit analysis. A real cynic might even wonder how many of these business travellers are PC party donors/supporters. But again, these are not the sort of decisions that should topple a government. Unfortunately, the Harper government has made an appalling number of bad legislative and policy decisions which justify toppling it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Lets be honest, the problem is to a degree the money spent, it makes her come across as entitled.

the biggest problem is her defense of it in terms of "I didn't know, I wasn't aware, I'm as shocked as the rest of you" I don't know who advised her to use that type of deflection defense but it just screams that this premiere is completely out of touch with what she's doing.

She was shocked at one of her aids running up a massive Olympic tab while flying family members to the game on her government credit card

She was caught unaware on every single thing that's happened with this government.

That's the problem with Alison Redford, it means that she is either an incompetent, blisffully unaware boob, or that she's a liar, or that she's politically stupid and being advised by the worst kind of people.

Look at the end of the day spending $45,000 dollars for that trip is absolutely the worst optics and she should be called up on the carpet for it and flayed for it publicly by the opposition, that's their job.

For those of you that are whining about the Wildrose party making this an issue, that's what they're supposed to do, especially in a majority government situation where they've floated a bunch of policy proposals to the government and been completely ignored by it. Right now to be honest we are governed by a tired, arrogant, stupidly run party that needs time away from government to gut its ranks and re-invent itself.

I think that if Alison Redford had stood up and said "Yeah I spent that money and I just farted what are you going to do about it" She would have had a slightly better reaction then, I'm an incompetent boob who can't budget and doesn't know what's happening in my very own office.

At this point unless she steps down, the PC party has already basically stated that she's going to be their party leader going forward.

But I would expect that we are not going to hear a lot our of Alison Redfords mouth except for the bare minimum til the next election, she is also going to completely avoid any dealings with the media, its all the PC's can do to protect herself.

On a side note, if the Keystone isn't approved after Redford did all of this jet setting to Washington on multiple occasions etc, she is going to get burned at the media stake.