Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 81415161718
Results 1,701 to 1,762 of 1762

Thread: Jason Kenney and the UCP Performance - first year of power

  1. #1701
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,776

    Default

    By next week this scandal will have largely been forgotten.
    Ucp is the Natural Governing Party of Alberta.

  2. #1702
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    I think it’s sad to see Rachel Notley get kicked out of the Legislature.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  3. #1703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I think it’s sad to see Rachel Notley get kicked out of the Legislature.
    I think it's extremely telling that Jason Kenney didn't get turfed out for doing the same thing a month ago when he said Rachel was being misleading...
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  4. #1704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Yeah, Jim Prentice was booted out for transgressions far less serious than rigging a leadership and then squashing the inquiry(in fact, it's never been entirely clear excatly WHY the public turned against him: orchestrating the floor-crossings? "Look in the mirror"?). So, we can't entirely rule out something like that happening again.

    Which is not the same thing as being able to predict with confidence that it WILL happen again. I think it's kind of up-in-the-air right now, and, should kamikaze reach a crisis point, there is probably a better chance that a chastened UCP would toss out some of the high-profile offenders, and/or re-invent itself under yet another label, than that the NDP would take power again.
    Prentice took the fall for all of the indiscretions of Redford. The floor crossings and "look in the mirror" were enough to convince people that he would not represent a clean break from previous iterations of the PCs. The icing on the cake was the debate and "math is difficult."

    How this relates to Kenney and the UCP is difficult to say. As others have pointed out, it will almost certainly take a divided right for the UCP to fall. I still think the genesis of such a split will need to be multi-factorial; blatant corruption by itself will likely not be sufficient. I agree with your suggestion that a crisis of corruption in the absence of other factors is more likely to lead to a UCP reboot than a divided right.

  5. #1705
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    By next week this scandal will have largely been forgotten.
    Ucp is the Natural Governing Party of Alberta.
    I agree.
    Animals are my passion.

  6. #1706

    Default

    The UCP is a disgrace to Alberta.

  7. #1707
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    The UCP is a disgrace to Alberta.
    ok. but 2/3 of the province voted them in. and chances are that they will still get in again, as albertans forget quickly.
    expect a 40 year consecutive run for the ucp.
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

  8. #1708

    Default

    It's not that ALbertans forget quickly. It's that they don't care about corruption as long as it's conservative corruption. If there was no Wild Rose party, the simply would turf whatever leader they saw as causing them bad press (Stelmach, Redford, etc) and carried on. Having two conservative parties just split the vote as to which was was the preferred way forward. If the UCP stays united, Albertans won't care about any corruption, no matter how egregious.

  9. #1709

    Default

    So long as the government is hurting the 'right' people, conservatives don't care & they see it as a feature rather than a bug.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  10. #1710

    Default

    Lets not pretend Lorne Gibson has been as impartial as his position requires or that there has been no transgression by Lorne himself. As previously mentioned here Lorne was let go in 2009 he then promptly sued the Alberta Govt seeking as much as 450K in alleged lost pay and with self testimony that he could not find subsequent employment. The lawsuit was unsuccessful and there was no finding that the Govt had acted inappropriately in not continuing his employment.

    Then the NDP's obtain a term in office and promptly hire the one person most likely to be ardently opposed to any Conservative party, Lorne Gibson. With such biased wags as Graham Thomson cheerleading this move in the media. Calling it ironic but not capturing the full sphere of irony. Am I really to believe that the specific hiring of Lorne Gibson was not any game playing on the part of the NDP? Were people really supposed to believe that Lorne Gibson would be an entirely impartial arbiter in the newly coined role of election commissioner? Why could the NDP not have hired any other qualified person for the role? Perhaps questions could be asked on that. In lieu of nobody really confronting that is it even fair to say that the NDP party hired Gibson in partisan fashion, who by then had limited credibility with Conservatives or the UCP, who have now fired him? Is this really any more than partisan games on all sides?

    In anycase, and regardless of what position one takes the NDP quite clearly tactically rehired Lorne Gibson. A move that could just as easily be seen as gamesmanship.

    In the end we all suffer because two or more parties are punting this around and playing fast and loose partisan politics with the very position that is supposed to hold them ALL accountable.

    That said, and I think its fair to say, that its quite clear that the position could use some fresh perspective and allow somebody else to perform the role as Lorne Gibson had effectively stopped serving Albertans interests when he unsuccessfully sued the province in what can be seen as a self serving gesture. That the NDP chose to rehire this same person was really what set in motion this short term position, that again was made by the NDP, and a position that was only likely to survive as long as the NDP were running the province.


    This is a reasonably balanced view imo but you'll see it expressed in few places due to the equally partisan media.

    ftr I'm not happy that the UCP enacted this. But I wasn't happy with the Lorne Gibson rehire by the NDP, and there was no legit reason to do that after 2009. It was time then for Lorne Gibson to move on, and he never did. Its probably that time again. I wonder if there will be another lawsuit against the province by a supposed arbiter of the province.
    Last edited by Replacement; Yesterday at 11:52 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  11. #1711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    It's not that ALbertans forget quickly. It's that they don't care about corruption as long as it's conservative corruption. If there was no Wild Rose party, the simply would turf whatever leader they saw as causing them bad press (Stelmach, Redford, etc) and carried on. Having two conservative parties just split the vote as to which was was the preferred way forward. If the UCP stays united, Albertans won't care about any corruption, no matter how egregious.
    I think it will ultimately be the state of the economy which decides their future. In the last election, people were really voting for change in the hopes the UCP would improve the economy considerably and focused mostly on that. All the scandals have the potential to wound them, but probably not fatally on their own. However, in combination with a weak economy it could do them in. We are in different territory now than with the entrenched PC dynasty and higher royalty revenues, another party has had experience in government and the UCP is not an unbroken continuation of the PC's.

  12. #1712

    Default

    Lets dismantle some more. The same Duff Conacher, cofounder of democracy watch, and recoiling in apparent horror this week at the firing of Lorne Gibson was just a few months ago highly critical of Lorne Gibson and questioning his interpretation and performance in his position.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...recy-1.4998014


    So I don't completely get this. Duff Conacher was highly critical of Lorne Gibson a short time ago, but is now highly critical of his ouster. Despite Duff Conacher himself being on record that Lorne Gibson was not being properly accountable to the public, and was apparently in some dereliction of duty.

    So Duff Conacher, the one and same, is saying both that Lorne Gibson was not performing his role adequately, was not being effective, was not being transparent with Albertans, and is also saying that his firing is "dangerously undemocratic" despite the UCP consistently claiming the position in question was not needed, that it was a waste of money, and who gave ample forenotice that the position was redundant, and resoundingly won an election with those views well known.


    hmmm
    Last edited by Replacement; Yesterday at 12:15 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  13. #1713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ...

    That said, and I think its fair to say, that its quite clear that the position could use some fresh perspective and allow somebody else to perform the role as Lorne Gibson had effectively stopped serving Albertans interests when he unsuccessfully sued the province in what can be seen as a self serving gesture. That the NDP chose to rehire this same person was really what set in motion this short term position, that again was made by the NDP, and a position that was only likely to survive as long as the NDP were running the province.

    ...
    It's not only Gibson being terminated, it's entire Office of the Alberta Election Commissioner (which is a department of the public service) being closed down.

    Currently, the Election Commissioner is an officer of the Legislature appointed by the Lieutenant Governor upon the recommendation of the Assembly; under the new legislation, the Election Commissioner is an employee of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. This alone creates less transparency in the hiring (and firing) of the Election Commissioner. Indeed, whereas under the current legislation the role of the Election Commissioner is required to be filled, under the new legislation there's no requirement for the role to be filled at all. The "fresh perspective" you allude to may turn out to be a vacuum.

    Moreover, all of the infrastructure that comes with being a department of the public service will no longer be available to the Election Commissioner. This means the commissioner will have no assurance of adequate resources available to conduct their duties. The job may exist on paper; in practice it may be powerless.

    Even if a new Election Commissioner is hired and they somehow do some work we may never know of it. This is because the annual report of the Election Commissioner, currently required by law to be provided the Assembly, will now instead go to die on the desk Chief Electoral Officer with no requirement for publication. Special reports of the Election Commissioner regarding current investigations will also only be published at the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer.

    All of this lessens transparency and weakens democracy.

  14. #1714
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    This is a reasonably balanced view imo but you'll see it expressed in few places due to the equally partisan media.


    It really isn't, but keep telling yourself that. Most of your post focused on his previous employment termination and subsequent dispute that occurred a decade ago. You entirely ignore the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and flagrant campaign finance violations that he uncovered in the UCP leadership race over the last 2-3 years, which is still ongoing and his current termination will almost certainly end. How that is a "reasonably balanced view" in your mind, I have no idea.

  15. #1715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    How that is a "reasonably balanced view" in your mind, I have no idea.
    Context is key...
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  16. #1716

    Default

    ^^^For clarity we're talking about an Alberta Election Commissioner office that was established all of 16mths ago, by the NDP govt, on July 1, 2018 that somehow Alberta managed to do without for over a Century of governance.

    "Upon the recommendation of the Assembly" (translation the NDP majority vote) this office was established. Not much more than a year later, with an overwhelming majority govt, the UCP is closing this down, with quite clear mandate to do so.


    The moment Lorne Gibson was hired to lead this commission (lol that Shepherd stated he was the best and most appropriate candidate) this was noted, in the assembly, as a quite clear partisan appointment made by the NDP.


    Again the NDP could have hired anybody else to head this office. They chose Lorne Gibson, a decision that deserves critique. The NDP, an accidental govt, and quite clearly results have shown, weakened this office, and its chances of survival the moment they decided on Gibson to run it. Had the NDP not specifically selected an obviously controversial Commissioner then maybe they could legitimately complain about the ouster now.

    Perhaps remarkably precious little is being stated about that. Lets not pretend the assembly was in any consensus, at any time, about the hire, or the office, in the first place.
    Last edited by Replacement; Yesterday at 02:11 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  17. #1717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    This is a reasonably balanced view imo but you'll see it expressed in few places due to the equally partisan media.


    It really isn't, but keep telling yourself that. Most of your post focused on his previous employment termination and subsequent dispute that occurred a decade ago. You entirely ignore the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and flagrant campaign finance violations that he uncovered in the UCP leadership race over the last 2-3 years, which is still ongoing and his current termination will almost certainly end. How that is a "reasonably balanced view" in your mind, I have no idea.
    As balanced as any that we are seeing in the media. I made no claims about the the Kenney campaign, the alleged violations etc. I even stated I'm not happy the UCP enacted this.

    Unlike Graham Thomson I'm not a paid media shrill who reports on Alberta politics while considering its voters retrobates, unlike Duff Conacher, I haven't unilaterally changed any position on Lorne Gibson. Albeit perhaps curiously I'm the only one reporting on Duff Conachers drastic about face. Perhaps the media could ask Duff about his change in opinion when interviewing him. But lazy journalism and all they probably don't even realize Duff Conacher was highly critical of Lorne Gibson's performance in his latest incumbency.

    In fairness little of the commentary this week is being very balanced.
    Last edited by Replacement; Yesterday at 02:14 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  18. #1718

    Default

    Past:
    Conacher said the role of watchdogs like Gibson is to ensure the public is served by democratic governments and that elections are fair."The public needs to know the details of what they are doing, including the full reasons and full information about why they might have dropped any complaint and let someone off the hook, or found someone guilty and actually penalized them.
    "When the public doesn't have that information, they simply can't tell whether these key democracy and good government rules are being enforced properly," he said. "Or whether they're being enforced in a way that favours one party or another."
    Present:
    Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, said the election commissioner has proven to be an effective guardian of Canada’s democratic institutions.“Despite some valid criticism of the election commissioner in Alberta being a little too secretive, he’s done more than anyone I’ve seen in a decade by investigating and then penalizing people who have broken the rules,” Mr. Conacher said. “And that’s why I’m sure Premier Kenney wants to get rid of him."
    I don't see this being a "drastic about face". He wasn't 100% on board with the way it was being done, sure, but that's far from being okay with it being completely shut down.
    Last edited by noodle; Yesterday at 02:24 PM.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  19. #1719

    Default

    When Gibson was let go by the Conservatives, all the conservative members of the panel voted yes and all the opposition members voted no. So if you're going to complain his re-hiring is partisan, you also have to say that his release was as well.

    The Conservatives weren't happy with his report that made 182 recommendations for improving elections in the province. Among these was taking the appointment of returning officers out of the hands of the government and moving it to the arms length elections officer. This was, among other recommendations, unacceptable to the Conservatives.

    During that time he poked, prodded and embarrassed the Progressive Conservative government-of–the-day by pointing out serious shortcomings in the 2008 general election, where 27 per cent of voters were left off the list and some people waited hours to vote.


    Gibson complained he couldn't conduct a proper enumeration of voters because of Alberta's bizarre, antiquated and unfair practice where the PC government controlled who would be the chief ballot-counter in every constituency. It was the stuff of banana republics.


    Gibson made 182 recommendations to improve the system. The government eventually adopted many of his suggestions, but Gibson had proven to be such a thorn in the government's side that in 2009, PC MLAs voted against renewing his contract, effectively firing him.


    In 2018, UCP opposition members unsuccessfully voted against his appointment as election commissioner.


    "There are a number of very public and controversial stories out there in regard to Mr. Lorne Gibson in his previous role here in Alberta as chief electoral officer," said UCP MLA Angela Pitt. "I fear that the public may view this appointment in a negative light."


    Yes, but the only reason there were controversial stories about Gibson was because he had spoken truth to power and been punished for it. This seemed to make the UCP, as government-in-waiting, nervous.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...bson-1.5365674
    The UCP expressing outrage that someone that they effectively fired because he WASN'T partisan is hardly a reason for the NDP not to hire him.

  20. #1720

    Default

    More of Duff Conachers comments from the article;

    "Gibson's "excessive secrecy," Conacher said, makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the public to determine if the election commissioner is making appropriate decisions."

    "Unfortunately like lots of government and democracy watchdogs, he is using his discretion to keep things secret that the public has a right to know,"

    "And it is just bad practice and makes it very difficult for the public to determine whether these people are doing their job properly."

    "The public needs to know the details of what they are doing, including the full reasons and full information about why they might have dropped any complaint and let someone off the hook, or found someone guilty and actually penalized them."



    These comments, and the one you cited, would be clearly consistent with a view that the office, under Gibson was not satisfactorily or ideally meeting its stated mandate.

    just saying
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  21. #1721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^^^For clarity we're talking about an Alberta Election Commissioner office that was established all of 16mths ago, by the NDP govt, on July 1, 2018 that somehow Alberta managed to do without for over a Century of governance.

    "Upon the recommendation of the Assembly" (translation the NDP majority vote) this office was established. Not much more than a year later, with an overwhelming majority govt, the UCP is closing this down, with quite clear mandate to do so.

    The moment Lorne Gibson was hired to lead this commission (lol that Shepherd stated he was the best and most appropriate candidate) this was noted, in the assembly, as a quite clear partisan appointment made by the NDP.

    Again the NDP could have hired anybody else to head this office. They chose Lorne Gibson, a decision that deserves critique. The NDP, an accidental govt, and quite clearly results have shown, weakened this office, and its chances of survival the moment they decided on Gibson to run it. Had the NDP not specifically selected an obviously controversial Commissioner then maybe they could legitimately complain about the ouster now.

    Perhaps remarkably precious little is being stated about that. Lets not pretend the assembly was in any consensus, at any time, about the hire, or the office, in the first place.
    How long it has been around is not really the issue, but if it wasn't for the fact that there were all these ongoing investigations into the UCP breaking financial rules, it probably wouldn't be such a concern. I would take your last comment and point out there is also certainly not a consensus now in the assembly about the action of the UCP government on this either.

  22. #1722

    Default

    [QUOTE=kkozoriz;953223]When Gibson was let go by the Conservatives, all the conservative members of the panel voted yes and all the opposition members voted no. So if you're going to complain his re-hiring is partisan, you also have to say that his release was as well. [QUOTE]

    I stated exactly that in my prior post. I fault all the parties for playing political partisan football in this.

    Indeed this is exactly what I posted in post 1710;

    "In the end we all suffer because two or more parties are punting this around and playing fast and loose partisan politics with the very position that is supposed to hold them ALL accountable. "


    Fault on all parties in my view. Just that theres no shortage of media wags crucifying the UCP this week for this partisan firing. (which I label as such) Where were they when the same partisan hire occurred in 2018?

    Is that fair comment?

    ps damn quote tags....
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  23. #1723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    When Gibson was let go by the Conservatives, all the conservative members of the panel voted yes and all the opposition members voted no. So if you're going to complain his re-hiring is partisan, you also have to say that his release was as well.
    I stated exactly that in my prior post. I fault all the parties for playing political partisan football in this.

    Indeed this is exactly what I posted in post 1710;

    "In the end we all suffer because two or more parties are punting this around and playing fast and loose partisan politics with the very position that is supposed to hold them ALL accountable. "


    Fault on all parties in my view. Just that theres no shortage of media wags crucifying the UCP this week for this partisan firing. (which I label as such) Where were they when the same partisan hire occurred in 2018?

    Is that fair comment?

    ps damn quote tags....
    But you're then saying that a move to undo a partisan move by the prior government is itself a partisan move. The Election office is supposed to be an arms length body, free of political interference. When the UCP decided that he wasn't being partisan ENOUGH for their liking, they decided to terminate him. Which, strangely enough, is pretty much the same reason they fired him again. Although this time they claim it's for budgetary reasons. You'd think that the $200,000 in fines would go a long way to paying for his office.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; Yesterday at 02:46 PM.

  24. #1724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    These comments, and the one you cited, would be clearly consistent with a view that the office, under Gibson was not satisfactorily or ideally meeting its stated mandate.
    Oh hey, you missed this:

    “Despite some valid criticism of the election commissioner in Alberta being a little too secretive, he’s done more than anyone I’ve seen in a decade by investigating and then penalizing people who have broken the rules,”
    There's no "drastic about face" here, he's consistent with his opinions. Perhaps nobody else is commenting on it because you're the only one who sees it that way.

    Your attempts to try and move the goalposts with semantics never work, Replacement.

    Just sayin'
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  25. #1725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^^^For clarity we're talking about an Alberta Election Commissioner office that was established all of 16mths ago, by the NDP govt, on July 1, 2018 that somehow Alberta managed to do without for over a Century of governance.

    "Upon the recommendation of the Assembly" (translation the NDP majority vote) this office was established. Not much more than a year later, with an overwhelming majority govt, the UCP is closing this down, with quite clear mandate to do so.

    The moment Lorne Gibson was hired to lead this commission (lol that Shepherd stated he was the best and most appropriate candidate) this was noted, in the assembly, as a quite clear partisan appointment made by the NDP.

    Again the NDP could have hired anybody else to head this office. They chose Lorne Gibson, a decision that deserves critique. The NDP, an accidental govt, and quite clearly results have shown, weakened this office, and its chances of survival the moment they decided on Gibson to run it. Had the NDP not specifically selected an obviously controversial Commissioner then maybe they could legitimately complain about the ouster now.

    Perhaps remarkably precious little is being stated about that. Lets not pretend the assembly was in any consensus, at any time, about the hire, or the office, in the first place.
    How long it has been around is not really the issue, but if it wasn't for the fact that there were all these ongoing investigations into the UCP breaking financial rules, it probably wouldn't be such a concern. I would take your last comment and point out there is also certainly not a consensus now in the assembly about the action of the UCP government on this either.
    I don't disagree. These are quite clearly partisan decisions. We all suffer. Democracy does. But that was as true in 2009, 2018 than it is now.

    We're getting devoutly partisan govt of any stripe, provincially, federally.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #1726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    But you're then saying that a move to undo a partisan move by the prior government is itself a partisan move.
    Replacement using a logical fallacy to try and advance his perspective?! NEVER!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  27. #1727
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^^^For clarity we're talking about an Alberta Election Commissioner office that was established all of 16mths ago, by the NDP govt, on July 1, 2018 that somehow Alberta managed to do without for over a Century of governance.
    So you have an issue with it because they immediately found the UCP breaking rules? Would you prefer they wait an "acceptable" amount of time before they pursue charges so that it looks less convenient for the NDP?

    Maybe the issue isn't that they immediately found foul play, maybe the issue is that it was there the whole time and no one was looking into it. Just maybe.

  28. #1728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    These comments, and the one you cited, would be clearly consistent with a view that the office, under Gibson was not satisfactorily or ideally meeting its stated mandate.
    Oh hey, you missed this:

    “Despite some valid criticism of the election commissioner in Alberta being a little too secretive, he’s done more than anyone I’ve seen in a decade by investigating and then penalizing people who have broken the rules,”
    There's no "drastic about face" here, he's consistent with his opinions. Perhaps nobody else is commenting on it because you're the only one who sees it that way.

    Your attempts to try and move the goalposts with semantics never work, Replacement.

    Just sayin'
    It was an edit that I've since looked at in your post. Fair point, good to see that Duff Conacher has since qualified his statement. I'm not too unreasonable to consider it. But I still think he's being a tad disingenuous saying his view was that Gibson was "a little too secretive" which is different than Conacher stating on record that Gibson was "EXCESSIVELY secretive".

    No goal post moving or play at semantics required on my part. Conacher quite clearly is playing with his semantics.


    Lastly Conacher self avowed beholder of light and fairness puts himself in a self described position of integrity which perhaps should be better considered in his statements and pronouncements. I'm an online punter having made no such claim..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  29. #1729

    Default

    [QUOTE=Replacement;953228][QUOTE=kkozoriz;953223]When Gibson was let go by the Conservatives, all the conservative members of the panel voted yes and all the opposition members voted no. So if you're going to complain his re-hiring is partisan, you also have to say that his release was as well.

    I stated exactly that in my prior post. I fault all the parties for playing political partisan football in this.

    Indeed this is exactly what I posted in post 1710;

    "In the end we all suffer because two or more parties are punting this around and playing fast and loose partisan politics with the very position that is supposed to hold them ALL accountable. "


    Fault on all parties in my view. Just that theres no shortage of media wags crucifying the UCP this week for this partisan firing. (which I label as such) Where were they when the same partisan hire occurred in 2018?

    Is that fair comment?

    ps damn quote tags....
    I actually don't think it is a fair comment to say someone with previous experience hired to provide more independent oversight when you are the government is a partisan hire. Although, maybe in some alternative universe it is.

  30. #1730

    Default

    Changing to "a little" from "excessively" is a "drastic about face"?
    Last edited by noodle; Yesterday at 03:00 PM.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  31. #1731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    When Gibson was let go by the Conservatives, all the conservative members of the panel voted yes and all the opposition members voted no. So if you're going to complain his re-hiring is partisan, you also have to say that his release was as well.
    I stated exactly that in my prior post. I fault all the parties for playing political partisan football in this.

    Indeed this is exactly what I posted in post 1710;

    "In the end we all suffer because two or more parties are punting this around and playing fast and loose partisan politics with the very position that is supposed to hold them ALL accountable. "


    Fault on all parties in my view. Just that theres no shortage of media wags crucifying the UCP this week for this partisan firing. (which I label as such) Where were they when the same partisan hire occurred in 2018?

    Is that fair comment?

    ps damn quote tags....
    But you're then saying that a move to undo a partisan move by the prior government is itself a partisan move. The Election office is supposed to be an arms length body, free of political interference. When the UCP decided that he wasn't being partisan ENOUGH for their liking, they decided to terminate him. Which, strangely enough, is pretty much the same reason they fired him again. Although this time they claim it's for budgetary reasons. You'd think that the $200,000 in fines would go a long way to paying for his office.
    I do find both actions, hire, and fire, partisan motivated and that both actions could be better handled. Gamemanship on both sides. This could have been much better dealt with by both the NDP and the UCP. Not an entirely unfair viewpoint.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  32. #1732

    Default

    ^^^Dave

    Again, the NDP could have chosen any highly qualified candidate to head the commission. They purposely chose Gibson. There was most definitely some prior mileage in that decision.

    Perhaps it would've been better for the NDP to hire a new candidate for the new Commissioner office. Its fair comment.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  33. #1733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Perhaps it would've been better for the NDP to hire a new candidate for the new Commissioner office.
    Why? What specifically about the candidate makes him a poor choice?

    E: Keep in mind this chunk of the Election Act (153.09 (3))

    (3) The Election Commissioner shall not make an adverse finding against a person or organization unless that person or organization has had reasonable notice of the substance of the allegations and a reasonable opportunity to present his or her or its views.
    What some may call a lack of transparency may also be part & parcel of due process as defined by the Act & not a grievous personal failing of the Commissioner directly.
    Last edited by noodle; Yesterday at 03:09 PM.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  34. #1734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Changing to "a little" from "excessively" is a "drastic about face"?
    You're arguing the drastic difference between "a little" and "excessive"

    That Duff himself is attempting to subsequently alter what he previously is on record stating is perfectly clear.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  35. #1735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Perhaps it would've been better for the NDP to hire a new candidate for the new Commissioner office.
    Why? What specifically about the candidate makes him a poor choice?
    Just framing that it would be expedient, and the office would have a better chance of continuance, if a more mutually agreed upon candidate was originally chosen.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  36. #1736

    Default

    Gibson's response to the UCP from 2012


    Ex-Electoral Officer Lorne Gibson's full shredding of PC claims he wanted secrecy

    Last week at about this time, former Chief Electoral Officer Lorne Gibson fired a jolting shot across the PC government’s bows.


    He’d finally had enough of government claims, voiced in the legislature, that he’d wanted details of illegal political contributions kept secret.


    Gibson said this clearly in an email he sent me. I’m blogging it now to get the full text (it’s below) on the record.

    The rationale for the recommendation was as follows: Every election and sometimes in the intervening period between elections, complaints and allegations of wrongdoing are made by either by the public or by candidates and parties against one another. Often the complaint or allegation itself is made public by the complainant and the media or others will inquire as to what action is being taken by the Chief Electoral Officer. Sometimes the complaint was not a breach of the elections legislation and sometimes it was not within the scope of authority of the Chief Electoral to deal with the matter. As a matter of policy, I would simply acknowledge that a complaint had been received and that my office was following up on it, but I would not reveal the nature of the complaint, the details of the inquiries that were being made to assess the veracity of the complaint, or any details of an investigation that may have been ongoing.


    Many of these complaints are frivolous or vexatious and baseless in fact. There is a lot at stake for the participants and the public in an election and very little time to defend oneself against groundless accusations. It is too easy to tarnish an individual’s reputation and adversely affect their political fortune with false allegations. It was and remains my view that it is not appropriate to make public the nature of every complaint the Chief Electoral Officer receives since many are unfounded and lack fact-based evidence. However, the recommendation for privacy during the conduct of an investigation was simply that! I think it is pretty clear that the recommendation was intended to pertain to that fact-finding process we call an investigation. It deals with the activities that are carried before the facts are known. It stretches the bounds of credibility to suggest that the intention of the recommendation was to keep private the results of investigations that lead to a finding of wrongdoing. In fact, whenever investigations reveal a breach of the legislation and a prosecution is sought from Alberta Justice, the charges and trial become a matter of public record.


    It is also an affront to suggest that an independent officer of the Legislature, such as the Chief Electoral Officer, would recommend that breaches of the law that he was sworn to uphold would be kept secret. As I am sure you are aware, one of the purposes of public disclosure within our justice system is to clarify the law and the consequences of breaking it in the hope that it will serve as a deterrent to others. On several occasions I reported publicly on the matters that had been referred to Alberta Justice for prosecution. I undertook an oath to the Legislature and the people of Alberta to perform the duties of the office without fear or favor and one of those duties was to enforce compliance with the law. In my view this cannot be done effectively without identifying those who have been judged to have broken the law.
    https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...wanted-secrecy

  37. #1737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You're arguing the drastic difference between "a little" and "excessive"
    I'm just trying to understand your claims, since it doesn't seem to be borne out in the record.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    That Duff himself is attempting to subsequently alter what he previously is on record stating is perfectly clear.
    A slight change in opinion during a dramatic change in circumstances is hardly worth mentioning, much less a "drastic about face" (your words).
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  38. #1738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Perhaps it would've been better for the NDP to hire a new candidate for the new Commissioner office.
    Why? What specifically about the candidate makes him a poor choice?

    E: Keep in mind this chunk of the Election Act (153.09 (3))

    (3) The Election Commissioner shall not make an adverse finding against a person or organization unless that person or organization has had reasonable notice of the substance of the allegations and a reasonable opportunity to present his or her or its views.
    What some may call a lack of transparency may also be part & parcel of due process as defined by the Act & not a grievous personal failing of the Commissioner directly.
    I think this is fair comment my esteemed colleague.

    As almost always I appreciate your efforts.


    Which only makes Duff's original claim somewhat odd. I didn't make his original statement, I was reacting to it. But he's in a position of responsibility, and yet threw Gibson quite clearly under the bus this same calendar year.

    A wish for better commentary all round..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  39. #1739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Just framing that it would be expedient, and the office would have a better chance of continuance, if a more mutually agreed upon candidate was originally chosen.
    Got it. You're upset the chickens didn't ask the foxes' opinion on who should be guarding the henhouse.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  40. #1740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Just framing that it would be expedient, and the office would have a better chance of continuance, if a more mutually agreed upon candidate was originally chosen.
    Got it. You're upset the chickens didn't ask the foxes' opinion on who should be guarding the henhouse.
    No.

    Although any Animal Farm reference or 1984 might be apt in relation to present governance and state of democracy.

    To counter I'd prefer that elected governance be handled in democratic, consulting, respectful fashion, amongst highly paid elected representatives. Too much to ask for quite clearly.

    We all suffer.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  41. #1741

    Default

    So you want elected officials responsible for ensuring the validity of the electoral system that puts them into power?

    "Works great! Got me elected! No problems here! Next!"
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  42. #1742
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    with quite clear mandate to do so.
    If it's so clear, you'll have no problem finding me a line in their campaign platform or a quote from Kenney saying that they intend on shutting down the office if elected. I'll wait.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Again the NDP could have hired anybody else to head this office. They chose Lorne Gibson, a decision that deserves critique. The NDP, an accidental govt, and quite clearly results have shown, weakened this office, and its chances of survival the moment they decided on Gibson to run it. Had the NDP not specifically selected an obviously controversial Commissioner then maybe they could legitimately complain about the ouster now.
    He was only controversial because he was a thorn in the side of the previous PC government, and had made a ton of recommendations to improve election processes in the province, resulting in them getting rid of him as quickly as they could because no one should question Alberta's true natural ruling party: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...bson-1.5365674

    I won't quote from the article as others already have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    These comments, and the one you cited, would be clearly consistent with a view that the office, under Gibson was not satisfactorily or ideally meeting its stated mandate.

    just saying


    So improve it. The UCP has summarily fired someone who was in the middle of investigating a bunch of shady shenanigans, in what is clearly an ethically challenged decision while the Premier is conveniently out of the country to avoid having to respond to any questions about it. And you seem fine with that. That's not balanced. That's shoving your head in the sand and pretending you see no evil. Just saying.

  43. #1743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ...

    To counter I'd prefer that elected governance be handled in democratic, consulting, respectful fashion, amongst highly paid elected representatives. Too much to ask for quite clearly.

    ...
    The issue is not "elected governance" but the legal basis within which our society has allowed elections and elected representatives to function. If you wish for elected representatives to function in a democratic, consulting, and respectful function then it's helpful to have someone make sure this legal basis is adhered to.

  44. #1744

    Default

    https://www.alberta.ca/farm-freedom-and-safety-act.aspx

    Labour relations

    • Farms and ranches will be exempt from the Labour Relations Code.
    Oh hey, look, more wasted money. This has been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (hence Bill 6), but here we go! Doing something "for the farmers" that's gonna be shut down by the "Eastern Elites" in the Supreme Court.

    Alberta was the only jurisdiction in Canada where farm and ranch employees did not have any form of labour relations coverage. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that all workers must have the right to form unions, bargain collectively and take legal job action. Excluding farm and ranch workers from Alberta’s Labour Relations Code was unconstitutional.
    https://www.alberta.ca/farm-and-ranc...relations.aspx (guessing this page is gonna get nuked ASAP)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  45. #1745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    with quite clear mandate to do so.
    If it's so clear, you'll have no problem finding me a line in their campaign platform or a quote from Kenney saying that they intend on shutting down the office if elected. I'll wait.
    ...
    Here's what the UCP platform has to say about that:

    A United Conservative government will make sweeping democratic reforms to strengthen democracy and accountability in Alberta.
    Source: https://www.albertastrongandfree.ca/policy/

  46. #1746
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,614

    Default

    Clear as mud.

  47. #1747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    with quite clear mandate to do so.
    If it's so clear, you'll have no problem finding me a line in their campaign platform or a quote from Kenney saying that they intend on shutting down the office if elected. I'll wait.
    ...
    Here's what the UCP platform has to say about that:

    A United Conservative government will make sweeping democratic reforms to strengthen democracy and accountability in Alberta.
    Source: https://www.albertastrongandfree.ca/policy/
    The UCP is on record, in the legislature, stating unequivocally that the Commissioners office was a waste of money. It was far from unexpected that they would do away with it. Again not agreeing with the move but it was hardly a surprise to anyone that this occurred.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  48. #1748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ...

    To counter I'd prefer that elected governance be handled in democratic, consulting, respectful fashion, amongst highly paid elected representatives. Too much to ask for quite clearly.

    ...
    The issue is not "elected governance" but the legal basis within which our society has allowed elections and elected representatives to function. If you wish for elected representatives to function in a democratic, consulting, and respectful function then it's helpful to have someone make sure this legal basis is adhered to.
    Was this occurring in your opinion with or without the commission? Did it even make a difference? Or was it ineffective? (Yes I've read the annual and only report of the commission)

    Democracy in earnest went off the rails decades ago. Swallowed whole by big business. We're left waffling on degrees of corruption, and always.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  49. #1749
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    The UCP is on record, in the legislature, stating unequivocally that the Commissioners office was a waste of money. It was far from unexpected that they would do away with it. Again not agreeing with the move but it was hardly a surprise to anyone that this occurred.
    So you're saying that the UCP did not in fact have that specific item in their election platform, and therefore do not have a clear mandate to do so. Thank you for clarifying your statement.

  50. #1750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    The UCP is on record, in the legislature, stating unequivocally that the Commissioners office was a waste of money. It was far from unexpected that they would do away with it. Again not agreeing with the move but it was hardly a surprise to anyone that this occurred.
    So you're saying that the UCP did not in fact have that specific item in their election platform, and therefore do not have a clear mandate to do so. Thank you for clarifying your statement.
    So every single thing that comes up in the next 4 years that they make a decision on, has to have been in the election platform?

  51. #1751
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoneman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    The UCP is on record, in the legislature, stating unequivocally that the Commissioners office was a waste of money. It was far from unexpected that they would do away with it. Again not agreeing with the move but it was hardly a surprise to anyone that this occurred.
    So you're saying that the UCP did not in fact have that specific item in their election platform, and therefore do not have a clear mandate to do so. Thank you for clarifying your statement.
    So every single thing that comes up in the next 4 years that they make a decision on, has to have been in the election platform?
    Notley will make it so
    Animals are my passion.

  52. #1752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    The UCP is on record, in the legislature, stating unequivocally that the Commissioners office was a waste of money. It was far from unexpected that they would do away with it. Again not agreeing with the move but it was hardly a surprise to anyone that this occurred.
    So you're saying that the UCP did not in fact have that specific item in their election platform, and therefore do not have a clear mandate to do so. Thank you for clarifying your statement.
    This was the whole post. Nice try at citing out of context. The context being that the UCP won a landslide election and thus the "mandate" from the electorate. I guess you can argue that or go onto correct the internet somewhere Marcel.



    "For clarity we're talking about an Alberta Election Commissioner office that was established all of 16mths ago, by the NDP govt, on July 1, 2018 that somehow Alberta managed to do without for over a Century of governance.

    "Upon the recommendation of the Assembly" (translation the NDP majority vote) this office was established. Not much more than a year later, with an overwhelming majority govt, the UCP is closing this down, with quite clear mandate to do so.


    The moment Lorne Gibson was hired to lead this commission (lol that Shepherd stated he was the best and most appropriate candidate) this was noted, in the assembly, as a quite clear partisan appointment made by the NDP.


    Again the NDP could have hired anybody else to head this office. They chose Lorne Gibson, a decision that deserves critique. The NDP, an accidental govt, and quite clearly results have shown, weakened this office, and its chances of survival the moment they decided on Gibson to run it. Had the NDP not specifically selected an obviously controversial Commissioner then maybe they could legitimately complain about the ouster now.

    Perhaps remarkably precious little is being stated about that. Lets not pretend the assembly was in any consensus, at any time, about the hire, or the office, in the first place."
    Last edited by Replacement; Yesterday at 05:54 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  53. #1753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    The UCP is on record, in the legislature, stating unequivocally that the Commissioners office was a waste of money. It was far from unexpected that they would do away with it. Again not agreeing with the move but it was hardly a surprise to anyone that this occurred.
    So you're saying that the UCP did not in fact have that specific item in their election platform, and therefore do not have a clear mandate to do so. Thank you for clarifying your statement.
    This was the whole post. Nice try at citing out of context. The context being that the UCP won a landslide election and thus the "mandate" from the electorate. I guess you can argue that or go onto correct the internet somewhere Marcel.



    "For clarity we're talking about an Alberta Election Commissioner office that was established all of 16mths ago, by the NDP govt, on July 1, 2018 that somehow Alberta managed to do without for over a Century of governance.

    "Upon the recommendation of the Assembly" (translation the NDP majority vote) this office was established. Not much more than a year later, with an overwhelming majority govt, the UCP is closing this down, with quite clear mandate to do so.


    The moment Lorne Gibson was hired to lead this commission (lol that Shepherd stated he was the best and most appropriate candidate) this was noted, in the assembly, as a quite clear partisan appointment made by the NDP.


    Again the NDP could have hired anybody else to head this office. They chose Lorne Gibson, a decision that deserves critique. The NDP, an accidental govt, and quite clearly results have shown, weakened this office, and its chances of survival the moment they decided on Gibson to run it. Had the NDP not specifically selected an obviously controversial Commissioner then maybe they could legitimately complain about the ouster now.

    Perhaps remarkably precious little is being stated about that. Lets not pretend the assembly was in any consensus, at any time, about the hire, or the office, in the first place."
    Lets not pretend that the real problem is not a huge conflict of interest and an abuse of power - those being investigated have essentially removed those investigating them. What a world we would live in if all those accused of crimes could fire the those on the police force investigating them. I guess law and order only applies to everyone else.

  54. #1754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoneman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    The UCP is on record, in the legislature, stating unequivocally that the Commissioners office was a waste of money. It was far from unexpected that they would do away with it. Again not agreeing with the move but it was hardly a surprise to anyone that this occurred.
    So you're saying that the UCP did not in fact have that specific item in their election platform, and therefore do not have a clear mandate to do so. Thank you for clarifying your statement.
    So every single thing that comes up in the next 4 years that they make a decision on, has to have been in the election platform?

    According to the nature and standard of past statements, I’d say: Yes.

    Alberta Election Fact Check: UCP says NDP hid carbon tax from Albertans in 2015 | Globalnews.ca

    “WATCH ABOVE: Earlier this month, UCP Leader Jason Kenney called out the NDP and said they weren't up front with Albertans about their plans for a carbon tax during the last provincial election. Emily Mertz takes a closer look to see how accurate that claim is.“


    ...

    “What do experts say?

    Duane Bratt, a political science professor at Mount Royal University, believes Notley didn’t mention the carbon tax specifically because the NDP hadn’t yet settled on that particular method.

    “It wasn’t like they had this plan all in place in April and they just didn’t tell people about it or campaign on it. I think they wanted to do something but they didn’t know what, and they used this process to bring it forward. So it was not hidden; they simply didn’t have a plan,” Bratt said.”


    https://globalnews.ca/news/4928688/a...dp-carbon-tax/

    UCP Leader Jason Kenney calls carbon tax “biggest lie in Alberta history” | LethbridgeNewsNOW| Lethbridge, Alberta | News, Sports, Weather, Obituaries, Real Estate

    “ Calling it “the biggest lie in Alberta history,” Kenney referred to the 2015 NDP platform while telling the crowd there had been no mention of imposing a carbon tax during the last election.”

    https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2019/0...berta-history/
    Last edited by KC; Yesterday at 06:32 PM.

  55. #1755

    Default

    ^^Dave, in stating that you are inferring that the most recent appointment and incumbency of Lorne Gibson was not an abuse of power in the first place. The likelihood is the NDP planted Gibson in the position while misrepresenting that he was the best and most appropriate candidate available. After Lorne attempted (unsuccessfully) to sue the province of Alberta for 2years full pay (and inordinate pay at that) I'm not convinced he was an appropriate candidate. Certainly the UCP, who expectedly formed government, were not at all convinced either of his impartiality, or his continuing qualification for the role.

    From what I recall the NDP were upset that the Chief electoral officer (Resler, still incumbent) did not intervene to prevent the Cons from joining forces as the UCP. Some say that the NDP dug up Lorne Gibson due to that.

    One could even say the NDP invented this new bit of bureaucracy, in defiance of Resler and his electoral mandate, and which cost taxpayers at least 1M bucks more and for not much more than a redundant role.

    Its a lot more complicated then we are presently hearing.

    I'm not sure when Lorne Gibson jumped the shark but probably sometime around 2008 or 2009. "Best candidate" Yeah I could see the NDP feeling that way. For clearly partisan reasons.
    Last edited by Replacement; Yesterday at 06:39 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  56. #1756
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,871

    Default

    I'm glad Kenney finally spoke out.
    Animals are my passion.

  57. #1757

    Default

    Every other province except Manitoba have an Election Commissioner as well as a chief electoral officer. The NDP didn't " invent(ed) this new bit of bureaucracy".

    The Conservatives fired him the first time because they thought that implementing some of his recommendations would take away some of the advantages they had as the party in power (such as appointing partisan political appointees as returning officers) and not being able to keep people off the voter rolls due to not actually working to ensure everyone is registered to vote. in the 2015 election, 27% of voters were not on the list and the Conservatives didn't offer enough people or money to ensure that they were before the election call.

  58. #1758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    So you want elected officials responsible for ensuring the validity of the electoral system that puts them into power?

    "Works great! Got me elected! No problems here! Next!"
    Bump


    Replacement, in light of your most recent post, your thoughts on noodle’s remark?

  59. #1759

    Default

    [QUOTE=KC;953286]
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoneman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    The UCP is on record, in the legislature, stating unequivocally that the Commissioners office was a waste of money. It was far from unexpected that they would do away with it. Again not agreeing with the move but it was hardly a surprise to anyone that this occurred.
    So you're saying that the UCP did not in fact have that specific item in their election platform, and therefore do not have a clear mandate to do so. Thank you for clarifying your statement.
    So every single thing that comes up in the next 4 years that they make a decision on, has to have been in the election platform?

    According to the nature and standard of past statements, I’d say: Yes.

    Alberta Election Fact Check: UCP says NDP hid carbon tax from Albertans in 2015 | Globalnews.ca

    “WATCH ABOVE: Earlier this month, UCP Leader Jason Kenney called out the NDP and said they weren't up front with Albertans about their plans for a carbon tax during the last provincial election. Emily Mertz takes a closer look to see how accurate that claim is.“


    ...

    “What do experts say?

    Duane Bratt, a political science professor at Mount Royal University, believes Notley didn’t mention the carbon tax specifically because the NDP hadn’t yet settled on that particular method.

    “It wasn’t like they had this plan all in place in April and they just didn’t tell people about it or campaign on it. I think they wanted to do something but they didn’t know what, and they used this process to bring it forward. So it was not hidden; they simply didn’t have a plan,” Bratt said.”


    https://globalnews.ca/news/4928688/a...dp-carbon-tax/

    [quote]
    UCP Leader Jason Kenney calls carbon tax “biggest lie in Alberta history” | LethbridgeNewsNOW| Lethbridge, Alberta | News, Sports, Weather, Obituaries, Real Estate

    “ Calling it “the biggest lie in Alberta history,” Kenney referred to the 2015 NDP platform while telling the crowd there had been no mention of imposing a carbon tax during the last election.”

    https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2019/0...berta-history/

    The UPC were elected primarily on a mandate to eliminate the deficit and start reducing the debt. Sine they had no intention of raising taxes to do this, the obvious way to achieve that is reducing or eliminating certain public programs, freezing or cutting public wages (seems the private sector has been cutting jobs the last few years and continues to do so), and eliminating or amalgamating positions. I believe removing this position (which the NDP created, by the sound of things), and combining it with another, falls into the above category.
    Last edited by Stoneman; Yesterday at 08:15 PM.

  60. #1760

    Default

    Meanwhile, the CUP have created a $30 million propaganda department and are planning on holding meetings to legitimize western separatists. Also, Kenny flew his Conservative buds to Saskatoon on a charted plane and one of his advisers has champagne taste on his multiple trips to London.

    Also, they've boosted the deficit by $2 billion due to ill informed corporate tax cuts.

    Yeah, a bang up job.

  61. #1761
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    "What's the furor about the führer?"

  62. #1762

    Default

    Jason Kenney is just a foreign asset planted to drum up subscriptions to the Beaverton.

    https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/11...gating-murder/

Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 81415161718

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •