The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Witchcraft!

So if a lawyer weighs the same as a duck, she must be made of wood, and therefore...DISBARRED!

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

He was elected in a similar manner too, wasn't he? Come-from-behind as a result of the two front-runners splitting the votes and all that jazz. Guy made quite a few mistakes too, but at least he never really seemed to have that sense of entitlement that Redford seems to have.

Stelmach was elected the same way by preferential ballot. Stelmach made some mistakes too and so did Redford. So I don't get why people keep saying Redford was smarter when Stelmach outlasted her by a mile and wasn't disgraced when at the office.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Alright, you didn't hate her from day one, but its clear that you were hardly a supporter regardless of whether these things had come to light.

I was hardly a supporter of the party that she led. The dislike for her grew over time as each transgression was revealed.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

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. What else don't they pay that they could EASILY afford but just don't because they can get away with it? Not that I'm outraged over the amounts per se, I just find it amusing that this is all completely acceptable. Money and power is truly all that matters to these parasites and they've even got some of you defending them. Except Redford, whose own misgivings seem to be exacerbated by her own miserable personality more than anything. She took it too far I guess, but what about all the others? Why is it okay to expense personal debts when it's not important to the job at all? Why can't they pay their own way? Don't give me the crap about needing to attract the best possible candidates either. These people are EXTREMELY well compensated and yet the quality of people we get for these jobs are mostly lacking anyway.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

And the fourth area is?

Sorry

Failure of transparency.

I'm not sure of that one.

[darklord700]

Redford's daugther flew without her a few times, the phantom passengers and sky palace were true and Redford used public resources inappropriately. That''s the auditor general's findings and seems like new new bones in the closet were discovered.

But it was indeed Redford who requested this review back in March 2014. She did all these and obviously thought no wrong of them, and thougth she would pass the review with flying colours. Why do people keep saying she is smart again?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

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. What else don't they pay that they could EASILY afford but just don't because they can get away with it? Not that I'm outraged over the amounts per se, I just find it amusing that this is all completely acceptable. Money and power is truly all that matters to these parasites and they've even got some of you defending them. Except Redford, whose own misgivings seem to be exacerbated by her own miserable personality more than anything. She took it too far I guess, but what about all the others? Why is it okay to expense personal debts when it's not important to the job at all? Why can't they pay their own way? Don't give me the crap about needing to attract the best possible candidates either. These people are EXTREMELY well compensated and yet the quality of people we get for these jobs are mostly lacking anyway.

There are so many issues in your post. First, they don't receive a pension anymore. That was one of the things done away with a few years ago. Second, they're largely expensing the kinds of things that everyone at every company expenses. I know that this seems like a stretch, but having a dinner with customers/clients/work people is still work. Every company in every industry expenses those meals and it has nothing to do with whether people can afford it.

I guess it does depend to some extent on what you consider EXTREMELY well compensated. Part of that comes down to your position in the workforce currently. I'll be the jerk here though, and say that $150k is not EXTREMELY well compensated.

[Resolute 14]

Well, she was intelligent, but clearly not smart. But given how much people have spoken about her personality, she's pretty clearly a major league narcissist, and such people tend to have serious blind spots about their own fallacies.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Voodooman

The AG report just went live at:

http://www.oag.ab.ca/webfiles/report...4%20Report.pdf

Happy Reading!


EDIT: Overall conclusion....

"Premier Redford used public assets (aircraft) for personal and partisan purposes. And Premier Redford was involved in a plan to convert public space in a public building into personal living space"

Ha ha ha. Oh Alison. It appears she didn't realize that being Premier is not akin to being royalty. At the end this is nowhere near as crooked as a lot of the stuff that happened with the Liberals under Chretien but I honestly what the hell was going through her head thinking the Premier had that kind of authority or right to have all these luxuries?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Voodooman

The AG report just went live at:

http://www.oag.ab.ca/webfiles/report...4%20Report.pdf

Happy Reading!


EDIT: Overall conclusion....

"Premier Redford used public assets (aircraft) for personal and partisan purposes. And Premier Redford was involved in a plan to convert public space in a public building into personal living space"

I've only had a chance to skim through this quickly so far, but on first glance the report doesn't appear to contain any new pieces of damning evidence; it just confirms what had already been widely reported by the media (inappropriate use of flights for personal/partisan reasons, flying her daughter + friends on government aircraft, block-booking the government plane, building a personal residence in a government building).

I'll read the entire report in more detail when I have some more available time later.

[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.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

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. What else don't they pay that they could EASILY afford but just don't because they can get away with it? Not that I'm outraged over the amounts per se, I just find it amusing that this is all completely acceptable. Money and power is truly all that matters to these parasites and they've even got some of you defending them. Except Redford, whose own misgivings seem to be exacerbated by her own miserable personality more than anything. She took it too far I guess, but what about all the others? Why is it okay to expense personal debts when it's not important to the job at all? Why can't they pay their own way? Don't give me the crap about needing to attract the best possible candidates either. These people are EXTREMELY well compensated and yet the quality of people we get for these jobs are mostly lacking anyway.

Do you have any idea what the Premier actually earns as a salary? Any idea how it compares to the salary of the CEO of a private sector company that employs tens of thousands of employees?

Here is a good place to start: http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/hr/MLA...ril%202013.htm

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

but I honestly what the hell was going through her head thinking the Premier had that kind of authority or right to have all these luxuries?

It's only my guess. But she spent a lot of time with the UN in those 3rd world countries. Those UN reps must be treated like royalties comparing to local nationals. And being a white woman lawyer in the Mandela administration would likely have offered her many perks and benefits as well.

It's probably hard for her to adjust from that livestyle back to our wholesome country one when she became the premier. And so she resumed her 5 star international travelling the first chance she got.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its an interesting report but there aren't a lot of surprises in there.

there are areas that blow away her I didn't know defense including the Arizonia trip.

Using a government jet strictly for PC Party Partisan events is a huge no no.

Her daughter flying on the plane for personal use without the premiere there and flying her friends is a big huge no no.

While I don't think there's anything criminal in there, there were some ethical issues. Alison's continued I didn't know defense falls flat when her daughter is flying alone on the plane, it also falls flat when she instructs her staff to cancel commercial bookings and orders up the private plane.

A scandal like this will stick to this party and government through the next election, its too big and juicy not to, and Prentice if he (likely) wins the party leadership is going to have a tough fight.

I would expect that the WR party is going to double down on this report and demand a deeper audit into all government activity to see if they can catch other members of the government with their hands in the cookie jar.

From a political science standpoint the next few days and weeks will be fascinating as the party desperately tries to portray Redford as a Rogue leader with anger and intimidation issues.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

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. What else don't they pay that they could EASILY afford but just don't because they can get away with it? Not that I'm outraged over the amounts per se, I just find it amusing that this is all completely acceptable. Money and power is truly all that matters to these parasites and they've even got some of you defending them. Except Redford, whose own misgivings seem to be exacerbated by her own miserable personality more than anything. She took it too far I guess, but what about all the others? Why is it okay to expense personal debts when it's not important to the job at all? Why can't they pay their own way? Don't give me the crap about needing to attract the best possible candidates either. These people are EXTREMELY well compensated and yet the quality of people we get for these jobs are mostly lacking anyway.

This is ridiculous. Business executives, who make significantly more money than elected officials, always expense meal and travel costs to their company. Why should anybody be expected to personally pay for expenses incurred while conducting business just "because they can afford it"?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by darklord700

And being a white woman lawyer in the Mandela administration would likely have offered her many perks and benefits as well.

Perks and benefits that a black male lawyer in the Mandela administration would not have been offered?

Of course, asking for this clarification is rather useless considering Redford never worked for the South African government, but why let facts get in the way of things?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by fotze

I'm amazed at how cheap it is to have a personal flight.

Personal aircraft to Jasper and back from Edmonton is only $3000.

Cost of the aircraft from Calgary to Palm springs was $10k. I would have thought it was way more than that. I'm getting a plane.

Yeah, I was thinking that with CalgaryPuck so filled with 1%'er's how hard would it be to raise $2 to $3.5 half million bucks to buy a Learjet 45 and create a CalgaryPuck airline?

[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.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is ridiculous. Business executives, who make significantly more money than elected officials, always expense meal and travel costs to their company. Why should anybody be expected to personally pay for expenses incurred while conducting business just "because they can afford it"?

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.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Slava

There are so many issues in your post. First, they don't receive a pension anymore. That was one of the things done away with a few years ago. Second, they're largely expensing the kinds of things that everyone at every company expenses. I know that this seems like a stretch, but having a dinner with customers/clients/work people is still work. Every company in every industry expenses those meals and it has nothing to do with whether people can afford it.

I guess it does depend to some extent on what you consider EXTREMELY well compensated. Part of that comes down to your position in the workforce currently. I'll be the jerk here though, and say that $150k is not EXTREMELY well compensated.

There's 'so many issues' in my post? I notice you listed three things. I'll address them.

1) Yeah I'm in BC, should've clarified that. Our MLAs get ridiculous pensions, as do the feds. I'm more speaking about politics in general, I am relatively ignorant of Alberta's political scene in particular, though this Redford mess piqued my interest I have to say. Good on Alberta for getting rid of them if true, pensions for politicians is a travesty.

2) The government isn't a private company and shouldn't be treated as such. Funny thing about expensing meals is people abuse the hell out of that privilege, I'm sure politicians are no different. If a private company wants to pay for employee's meals with clients, fine I don't care at all, none of my business. Personally I just don't agree with politicians doing it unless it's a public event already paid for anyway. Doesn't benefit society at large, just rich people who want stuff for free.

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).