The Alberta PC dynasty is over. The longest successful run by a political party in the history of Canada ended after 43years 7 months at approximately 8:40pm May 5th, 2015. There has been plenty already written about what happened & why, but most of those missed or greatly diminished some the key events that led Albertans to mark their X on their ballots for someone other than a PC candidate as so many had in the past. Here is my take.
A little history. When Alison Redford resigned as Premier in March 2014 the PCAA was in trouble. Plagued with scandal, trust issues and broken promises, the leaderless PCAA was polling at 19%, well less than the Wildrose at 46% and just barely ahead of the NDP at 15%. The PCAA needed help bad, they needed a 'white knight' to restore what Redford had destroyed and that help arrived in the form of Jim Prentice. Even before officially announcing his run for the party leadership most of the PC caucus had publicly come out to endorse him; front runner Ken Hughes ended his bid for leadership and expected challengers such as former Edmonton mayor Stephen Mandel said they would not enter the race against Prentice. A token leadership race was held where Prentice promised to fix his own party and correct the mistakes of the past and as expected he emerged as party leader with a whopping 76+% first ballot win on September 6th, 2014. The PCAA was going to bank on the former federal politician and CIBC executive to try and save their party; and it worked. In October of 2014 the PCAA was back on top of the polls and Albertans were ready to give him a chance to see what he could do in the 19 months remaining in the mandate and this support was clearly demonstrated in the 4 by-elections held October 27th where Prentice and 3 other PCAA candidates handily won their races. It was also the beginning of the end.
Without access to Jim Prentice's brain it is unclear when exactly he decided that he was going to call a general election in the spring of 2015. I suspect it was already in his mind at the time of by-elections but if it was not, the 4 by-election victories certainly helped him make that decision; what followed next would cement it.
On December 17th, 2014 nine opposition Wildrose MLAs including party leader Danielle Smith crossed the floor and joined the PCAA caucus after secret discussions which had been going on since before Prentice had even officially entered the leadership race. At the time Prentice was hailed as a genius by many in the press. Machiavellian they wrote as he had hobbled the strongest opposition that Alberta had seen in years and any immediate anger over the crossings would be directed towards Danielle Smith and not land at his feet, and an election, when called would surely be in the bag with a united 'right'. The reality was though that this move did not unite the right, and in fact did the opposite. For Wildrose supporters it was a realization that their movement was about more than 1 person (Smith) and once the feeling of the betrayal subsided they got back to work and resolved to rebuild the party to make it stronger than ever. For PC supporters there were many who could not accept what their leader had done by accepting those that crossed and this reaction was immediate when the PCAA executive announced that the floor crossers would have to face nominations contrary to what Prentice had promised creating a rift within his own party. As for the general public the saw the Wildrose as an effective opposition who had kept the huge PC majority in check for years and viewed this move by both Prentice and Smith as opportunistic and dirty. This was not a make or break move with the electorate as the PCAA
remained high in the polls but it gave them a glimpse at the real Jim
Prentice who was not below playing the same cynical political games of his
predecessors even though he was supposed to be different.
The run up to the election saw more missteps. As stories of mismanagement from the past appeared, Prentice's go to excuse of 'that was the previous gov't and before my time' was wearing very thin with Albertans and even more so when he told Albertans to "look in the mirror" as to who was to blame for the crisis which was due to PC gov't failures. He ordered an 'independent legislative committee' to go back and reverse a decision to give more funding to the auditor general citing that there was 'no more money' while stories of buying 80" televisions and secret contracts giving millions of dollars to PC associates were making headlines. Stories of shenanigans within PC nominations including allegations of bribes, lawsuits and PC insiders fixing nominations flourished hurting the grass roots of the PCAA and solidifying the dirty nature of PC politics with the electorate. He laid the groundwork for what he called a once in a generation budget even going on television spelling doom and gloom to try and sell Albertans only to deliver a middle of the road budget that could have easily have been from Redford or Stelmach; a budget that nobody was really talking about a week into the election other than the reversal he made to reduce the deduction for charitable contributions. None of which were fatal on their own but all added to the already long list of reasons why voters were to about reject him and his party within months.
The fatal blow came on April 7th, 2015 when Prentice advised the Lieutenant Governor to call an election for May 5th, 2015. This was the straw that broke the camels back if you will among the Alberta electorate as it summed up everything that was wrong with the PCAA. It was unnecessary & unasked for as there was 1 yr left on the mandate. It was expensive at a time when Prentice said there was no more money and we had to cut back. It was potentially illegal as it violated the fixed date law and enforced the 'laws apply you but not for me' arrogance we have all seen for years from the PC's. It was unfair and seen as underhanded after what he had done to the opposition Wildrose who were forced into a rushed leadership contest and whose new leader had just lost his son only weeks before.
Albertans saw Prentice's election move for exactly what it was; an opportunistic vanity election aimed solely at retaining power for Prentice and the PCAA. Not many outside Alberta have an idea how just how unpopular his decision to call an election was. It was the issue that everyone talked about not only at the doors but in offices and homes and it did not go away as Prentice was still defending his decision the eve before the vote. The election itself became THE election issue. Albertans are fair minded people and they gave Jim Prentice a chance not only to fix his own party but also to run the province. The moment that Prentice walked to the Lt-Governors office to ask for an election he squandered all of the trust and faith that Albertans had given him. Albertans knew, for all of the reasons above and more, that Prentice and the PCAA did not deserve re-election. The only question left was who were they going to vote for.
The campaign itself and the piles of money which the PCAA spent on ads to sway the electorate had little or no effect. There would be no succumbing to fear and holding ones nose and voting PCAA at the last minute this time around as the election was really over before it started. ( Odd fact: The first time the NDP led the PCAA in any poll in years ( perhaps since 1971?) was a poll taken Apr 1-6th (the day before the election call) and the NDP have led ever since)
There is lots to discuss about why the electorate went towards the NDP, other than to say that reasons for both the fall of the PCAA and the rise of the NDP lay at the feet of Jim Prentice, I will leave that discussion up to others.
Thursday, May 07, 2015
Friday, February 13, 2015
High River gun grab report released. Surprise! Much of it was illegal.
Yesterday the long awaited report into the RCMP gun grab in High River Alberta was released and you can read it here: https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/chair-initiated-complaint-and-public-interest-investigation-rcmps-response-2013-flood-high-river
There is plenty there to digest but to sum it up: The RCMP had a legal right to enter (some but not all) homes under Alberta's Emergency Management Act without warrant during a certain time frame ( they abused this time frame) and were allowed by the Criminal Code to seize unsecured guns ( they were not allowed to seize properly stored guns but did so anyway) that were in 'plain sight'. But because the RCMP never lived up to its obligations under the criminal code to take the guns they had seized without warrant before a judge as required by the Criminal Code, it made virtually every single gun seizure by the RCMP done High River an illegal act. That is correct, every single gun seized was seized illegally.
Some of the findings:
Finding No. 11: It was reasonable for the RCMP members to secure buildings after completing their search. ( it is well known that the RCMP did not secure many residences after they were done searching)
Finding No. 23: In a number of cases, RCMP members' forcible entries to facilitate home inspections caused significant damage and were not reasonable in circumstances where buildings were unaffected by the flood.
Finding No. 24: The secondary entries for the specific purpose of seizing unsecured firearms were not authorized by the Emergency Management Act.
Finding No. 28: RCMP members were authorized to seize unsecured firearms pursuant to section 489 of the Criminal Code. ( see next finding)
Finding No. 29: In a number of cases the RCMP seized firearms which were lawfully secured.
Finding No. 30: RCMP members were not authorized by the Criminal Code to seize secured firearms. (FYI: A gun in 'plain sight' may indeed be properly stored, where it is located is not the major criteria for defining safe storage)
Finding No. 32: RCMP supervisors failed to provide sufficient guidance to members involved in the seizure of firearms.
Finding No. 34: Where a secondary entry into a building was not authorized under the Emergency Management Act or the common law, the seizure of unsecured firearms was also unauthorized.
Finding No. 37: In several cases the searches exceeded their authorized scope by expanding from a search for people or pets to a search for firearms or contraband.
Finding No. 39: RCMP members failed to report to a justice to show that they had reasonable grounds to undertake warrant less seizures pursuant to paragraph 489.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. ( this is the big one showing that ALL seizures were illegal)
Finding No. 46: Overall, the RCMP's communications approach to the High River flooding crisis was ineffective and resulted in a negative impact on RCMP emergency operations and reputation.
Again I suggest you read it all for yourself. This was not a whitewash as some have suggested but rather a thorough investigation of what actually happened in High River.
A couple of other points: First, to blow my own horn, I sort of nailed a lot of this, mainly on the AEMA back in September 2013 with this post: http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.ca/2013/09/what-happened-in-high-river-is-going-to.html I took a lot of heat for that at the time from many who said I was completely wrong about AEMA not giving police any special powers to seize property (guns). Strangely all of those people are silent today.
The other thing is that as much as I like to dump on the PC gov't here in Alberta; this was NOT the fault of Solicitor General Jonathan Denis or the Alberta Government. In fact Denis when he first learned what happened wrote a letter to the RCMP asking for details and clarification on the seizures. He has taken plenty of grief over this and frankly does not deserve any of it. I alluded to this in my Sept 2013 post but wanted to state it again because once again he and the gov't are getting dumped on. Did the PC's try to play politics with this and smear the Wildrose Party as lawless gun nuts? Yes they did and should be called out over it, but in the end they were not responsible for the RCMP's actions.
There is plenty there to digest but to sum it up: The RCMP had a legal right to enter (some but not all) homes under Alberta's Emergency Management Act without warrant during a certain time frame ( they abused this time frame) and were allowed by the Criminal Code to seize unsecured guns ( they were not allowed to seize properly stored guns but did so anyway) that were in 'plain sight'. But because the RCMP never lived up to its obligations under the criminal code to take the guns they had seized without warrant before a judge as required by the Criminal Code, it made virtually every single gun seizure by the RCMP done High River an illegal act. That is correct, every single gun seized was seized illegally.
Some of the findings:
Finding No. 11: It was reasonable for the RCMP members to secure buildings after completing their search. ( it is well known that the RCMP did not secure many residences after they were done searching)
Finding No. 23: In a number of cases, RCMP members' forcible entries to facilitate home inspections caused significant damage and were not reasonable in circumstances where buildings were unaffected by the flood.
Finding No. 24: The secondary entries for the specific purpose of seizing unsecured firearms were not authorized by the Emergency Management Act.
Finding No. 28: RCMP members were authorized to seize unsecured firearms pursuant to section 489 of the Criminal Code. ( see next finding)
Finding No. 29: In a number of cases the RCMP seized firearms which were lawfully secured.
Finding No. 30: RCMP members were not authorized by the Criminal Code to seize secured firearms. (FYI: A gun in 'plain sight' may indeed be properly stored, where it is located is not the major criteria for defining safe storage)
Finding No. 32: RCMP supervisors failed to provide sufficient guidance to members involved in the seizure of firearms.
Finding No. 34: Where a secondary entry into a building was not authorized under the Emergency Management Act or the common law, the seizure of unsecured firearms was also unauthorized.
Finding No. 37: In several cases the searches exceeded their authorized scope by expanding from a search for people or pets to a search for firearms or contraband.
Finding No. 39: RCMP members failed to report to a justice to show that they had reasonable grounds to undertake warrant less seizures pursuant to paragraph 489.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. ( this is the big one showing that ALL seizures were illegal)
Finding No. 46: Overall, the RCMP's communications approach to the High River flooding crisis was ineffective and resulted in a negative impact on RCMP emergency operations and reputation.
Again I suggest you read it all for yourself. This was not a whitewash as some have suggested but rather a thorough investigation of what actually happened in High River.
A couple of other points: First, to blow my own horn, I sort of nailed a lot of this, mainly on the AEMA back in September 2013 with this post: http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.ca/2013/09/what-happened-in-high-river-is-going-to.html I took a lot of heat for that at the time from many who said I was completely wrong about AEMA not giving police any special powers to seize property (guns). Strangely all of those people are silent today.
The other thing is that as much as I like to dump on the PC gov't here in Alberta; this was NOT the fault of Solicitor General Jonathan Denis or the Alberta Government. In fact Denis when he first learned what happened wrote a letter to the RCMP asking for details and clarification on the seizures. He has taken plenty of grief over this and frankly does not deserve any of it. I alluded to this in my Sept 2013 post but wanted to state it again because once again he and the gov't are getting dumped on. Did the PC's try to play politics with this and smear the Wildrose Party as lawless gun nuts? Yes they did and should be called out over it, but in the end they were not responsible for the RCMP's actions.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Open Nominations. Edmonton Mill Woods Edition.
Varinder Bhuller, the candidate who already was green-lighted for the Liberal Party of Canada's nomination in Edmonton Mill Woods dropped a bombshell right in Justin Trudeau's lap with his latest Facebook post https://www.facebook.com/VoteBhullar/posts/857414177614337
(Highlighting mine) "I received my Green Light from the party in March 2014 and I was promised that there would be a nomination prior to Edmonton’s Sikh Parade in May 2014 so that I could campaign as a candidate there. In April 2014, however, I found out that Councillor Sohi came into the picture, and since then everything has stalled on the nomination front. Various party officials met with me in May, June and August 2014, pressuring me to withdraw my name in favour of Councillor Sohi so he wouldn’t need to contest a nomination. They tried to bribe me, threaten me and ultimately expired all my memberships by delaying the nomination beyond December 31, 2014 in the hope that our team would not renew their memberships. Once they noticed that a large number of members had started renewing their memberships, the party used their last weapon to revoke my Green Light by accusing me of membership infractions. This is only the second case in all of Canada where the Liberal Party has gone out and cancelled a candidate’s Green Light. Coincidentally, the other one was also in a riding where their preferred candidate (General Andrew Leslie) was at risk of losing in a nomination."
We all, and I mean everyone, already knows that Justin's pledge of open nominations is a joke and this just adds to the long list of other examples of the nominations being anything but open, but this one is a bit different in that it alleges that the LPC tried to "bribe me and threaten me"; both illegal acts. So far I have not seen any media on this but as they say, stay tuned because this one is going to cause some trouble.
(Highlighting mine) "I received my Green Light from the party in March 2014 and I was promised that there would be a nomination prior to Edmonton’s Sikh Parade in May 2014 so that I could campaign as a candidate there. In April 2014, however, I found out that Councillor Sohi came into the picture, and since then everything has stalled on the nomination front. Various party officials met with me in May, June and August 2014, pressuring me to withdraw my name in favour of Councillor Sohi so he wouldn’t need to contest a nomination. They tried to bribe me, threaten me and ultimately expired all my memberships by delaying the nomination beyond December 31, 2014 in the hope that our team would not renew their memberships. Once they noticed that a large number of members had started renewing their memberships, the party used their last weapon to revoke my Green Light by accusing me of membership infractions. This is only the second case in all of Canada where the Liberal Party has gone out and cancelled a candidate’s Green Light. Coincidentally, the other one was also in a riding where their preferred candidate (General Andrew Leslie) was at risk of losing in a nomination."
We all, and I mean everyone, already knows that Justin's pledge of open nominations is a joke and this just adds to the long list of other examples of the nominations being anything but open, but this one is a bit different in that it alleges that the LPC tried to "bribe me and threaten me"; both illegal acts. So far I have not seen any media on this but as they say, stay tuned because this one is going to cause some trouble.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Alberta's 'anti-bullying' Minister Sandra Jansen provides a side show on a very busy day, but we all missed something.
What a crazy day in Alberta politics Friday March 14, 2014 turned out to be. A day when news that former Alberta Health Services executive Allaudin Merali is suing AHS and Health Minister Fred Horne for $6 Million dollars, which would normally be a huge front page story, is lucky to make it to page 5 in any Alberta paper tomorrow.
What happened today:
Premier Redford continues to be under siege. (not new today but continues to be a hot story)
We had Doug Griffiths, Minister of Service Alberta, Tweeting out subtle tweets on Redford's leadership.
We had a PC riding association President openly call for Redford to resign.
We had another Minister, Thomas Lukaszuk, Tweeting out a defense of Len Webber, the PC MLA who will now sit as an independent and caused quite the fire storm by saying that Redford was "not a nice lady" among other things, and later Lukaszuk Tweeted out a defense of electricians in response to another Minister's comments on national TV. (more on that later)
We had a 'bar fight' among Alberta MLA's.
And to end the day we had news that the Executive Director of the PCAA, Kelley Charlbois, of $400,000 for verbal advice to Gary Mar fame, is no longer in his role with the PC party.
Keep in mind that most of this took place within a 6 hour window! The Alberta advantage exists even in political news I guess as the day seemed to get crazier as it went on with the comments I eluded to earlier by Minister Sandra Jansen topping the crazy with the fire storm they created, and the buried lede that most people missed.
Watch Jansen's comments for yourself here.
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=307697&binId=1.1201914&playlistPageNum=1
Here is the comment that set off the fire storm. Jansen: "I would say right now, you know, if Len had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, he should perhaps reconsider his decision to step into federal politics. Maybe he should go back to being an electrician."
The backlash was immediate. Twitter lit up with the negative response to what Jensen had said concentrating on what was a shot not only a Len Webber but perceived to be a shot at electricians in general in that somehow the job is in some way lesser than a politicians. It was ugly, but Jansen's electrician comment was not the worst part about what she said.
Yes the electrician comment was stupid, newsworthy, and deserved to be called out, but from the responses/reports that I have seen it seems that everyone was so focused on the electrician bit that we all missed the big story.
Let me explain and have some fun with this at the same time. Lets look at her comment again but this time
lets substitute other people, places etc into the 'blanks' and see if you think the same way about what she said.
Original quote (with underlined areas indicating 'blank' area to insert your choices): I would say right now, you know, if Len had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, he should perhaps reconsider his decision to step into federal politics. Maybe he should go back to being an electrician.
Go ahead. Give it a try as I did in the following examples:
I would say right now, you know, if your kid had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, than maybe he should perhaps reconsider going to that school.
If brown people have such a problem with what they perceived as bullying, than maybe they should perhaps reconsider coming to this country and go back to where they came from.
I could go on but I think you get my point.
What an absolutely abhorrent thing for a so called Anti-bullying Minister to say to a victim of bullying. To tell anyone, it doesn't matter who, that if they do not like what they perceive as bullying (what does that mean anyway?) that it is THEY (the victim) who should alter their lives, remove themselves from doing what they want to do, and go do something else if they don't like being bullied. Bullied at work, quit your job. Bullied at school, move schools, etc.
What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.Ever.
I am not in the habit of doing this, because I realize people do make mistakes and I have been known to say some pretty stupid things myself, but the fact that Jansen did say what she did shows that she is clueless and has no idea how to do her job and she needs to immediately apologize, step aside and resign as Minister.
What happened today:
Premier Redford continues to be under siege. (not new today but continues to be a hot story)
We had Doug Griffiths, Minister of Service Alberta, Tweeting out subtle tweets on Redford's leadership.
We had a PC riding association President openly call for Redford to resign.
We had another Minister, Thomas Lukaszuk, Tweeting out a defense of Len Webber, the PC MLA who will now sit as an independent and caused quite the fire storm by saying that Redford was "not a nice lady" among other things, and later Lukaszuk Tweeted out a defense of electricians in response to another Minister's comments on national TV. (more on that later)
We had a 'bar fight' among Alberta MLA's.
And to end the day we had news that the Executive Director of the PCAA, Kelley Charlbois, of $400,000 for verbal advice to Gary Mar fame, is no longer in his role with the PC party.
Keep in mind that most of this took place within a 6 hour window! The Alberta advantage exists even in political news I guess as the day seemed to get crazier as it went on with the comments I eluded to earlier by Minister Sandra Jansen topping the crazy with the fire storm they created, and the buried lede that most people missed.
Watch Jansen's comments for yourself here.
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=307697&binId=1.1201914&playlistPageNum=1
Here is the comment that set off the fire storm. Jansen: "I would say right now, you know, if Len had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, he should perhaps reconsider his decision to step into federal politics. Maybe he should go back to being an electrician."
The backlash was immediate. Twitter lit up with the negative response to what Jensen had said concentrating on what was a shot not only a Len Webber but perceived to be a shot at electricians in general in that somehow the job is in some way lesser than a politicians. It was ugly, but Jansen's electrician comment was not the worst part about what she said.
Yes the electrician comment was stupid, newsworthy, and deserved to be called out, but from the responses/reports that I have seen it seems that everyone was so focused on the electrician bit that we all missed the big story.
Let me explain and have some fun with this at the same time. Lets look at her comment again but this time
lets substitute other people, places etc into the 'blanks' and see if you think the same way about what she said.
Original quote (with underlined areas indicating 'blank' area to insert your choices): I would say right now, you know, if Len had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, he should perhaps reconsider his decision to step into federal politics. Maybe he should go back to being an electrician.
Go ahead. Give it a try as I did in the following examples:
I would say right now, you know, if your kid had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, than maybe he should perhaps reconsider going to that school.
If brown people have such a problem with what they perceived as bullying, than maybe they should perhaps reconsider coming to this country and go back to where they came from.
I could go on but I think you get my point.
What an absolutely abhorrent thing for a so called Anti-bullying Minister to say to a victim of bullying. To tell anyone, it doesn't matter who, that if they do not like what they perceive as bullying (what does that mean anyway?) that it is THEY (the victim) who should alter their lives, remove themselves from doing what they want to do, and go do something else if they don't like being bullied. Bullied at work, quit your job. Bullied at school, move schools, etc.
What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.Ever.
I am not in the habit of doing this, because I realize people do make mistakes and I have been known to say some pretty stupid things myself, but the fact that Jansen did say what she did shows that she is clueless and has no idea how to do her job and she needs to immediately apologize, step aside and resign as Minister.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
The ugly truth behind Premier Redford's decision to pay for her South Africa trip.
Yesterday Alison Redford did what she has said for over a month now that she would not do. She paid back nearly $45,000 for the costs associated with her trip to South Africa to attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela.
For over a month the Premier has steadfastly claimed that the expenses were government business and that she would not be paying back the money. She even went so far as to tell us what we were thinking on the matter, that we (Albertans) were ready to forgive her and that we were ready to move on from this matter.
Was she ever wrong. Albertans were not ready to move on from this and in fact the outrage continued. Even the tried and true PC method of waiting it out or waiting for the next screw-up to take over headlines so Albertans forget about the previous one didn't work. Although it may have worked had the next 'screw-ups' not also involved the Premier's questionable use of the government air fleet; the issue continued to simmer and the outrage over the incident(s) continued among the electorate.
But what changed yesterday. What was it that made Premier Redford do a complete about face and pay back the money that for over a month she absolutely refused to do.
It wasn't the outrage level from thousands of Albertans who were angry about the waste of tax dollars by the Premier. That has been pretty much constant throughout so that did not change
No, the difference was not the thousands of Albertans upset over this but rather it was just 18 - 20 Albertans, who also happen to be PC MLAs within her caucus who voiced their outrage over the incident, that made the difference.
The fact of the matter is that Alison Redford could not have cared less about what thousands of Albertans thought about this. Their (our) opinions meant nothing to her because there is nothing that we can do about it for at least 2 years until the next election, but she does care about what 20 very specific Albertans think because they can do something about it today.
It is all about self preservation for Alison Redford and what those 20 people thinks matter to her more than the opinions of thousands of Albertans.
And that is the ugly truth.
For over a month the Premier has steadfastly claimed that the expenses were government business and that she would not be paying back the money. She even went so far as to tell us what we were thinking on the matter, that we (Albertans) were ready to forgive her and that we were ready to move on from this matter.
Was she ever wrong. Albertans were not ready to move on from this and in fact the outrage continued. Even the tried and true PC method of waiting it out or waiting for the next screw-up to take over headlines so Albertans forget about the previous one didn't work. Although it may have worked had the next 'screw-ups' not also involved the Premier's questionable use of the government air fleet; the issue continued to simmer and the outrage over the incident(s) continued among the electorate.
But what changed yesterday. What was it that made Premier Redford do a complete about face and pay back the money that for over a month she absolutely refused to do.
It wasn't the outrage level from thousands of Albertans who were angry about the waste of tax dollars by the Premier. That has been pretty much constant throughout so that did not change
No, the difference was not the thousands of Albertans upset over this but rather it was just 18 - 20 Albertans, who also happen to be PC MLAs within her caucus who voiced their outrage over the incident, that made the difference.
The fact of the matter is that Alison Redford could not have cared less about what thousands of Albertans thought about this. Their (our) opinions meant nothing to her because there is nothing that we can do about it for at least 2 years until the next election, but she does care about what 20 very specific Albertans think because they can do something about it today.
It is all about self preservation for Alison Redford and what those 20 people thinks matter to her more than the opinions of thousands of Albertans.
And that is the ugly truth.
Monday, March 03, 2014
Minister Tim Uppal to run for the CPC nomination in Edmonton Millwoods.
The Honourable Tim Uppal, Minister of State for Multiculturalism will soon be announcing that he is running for the Conservative Party of Canada nomination in the newly formed riding of Edmonton Millwoods.
You heard it here first.
MAP
The current MP for Edmonton-Millwoods-Beaumont, Mike Lake, announced that he will seek the CPC nomination in Edmonton-Wetaskiwin where he now lives thanks to where Elections Canada decided to draw a line across the current riding. With Tim running in Edm-Millwoods, this now leaves the newly redrawn riding of Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan up for grabs with no incumbent running.
Stay tuned.
You heard it here first.
MAP
The current MP for Edmonton-Millwoods-Beaumont, Mike Lake, announced that he will seek the CPC nomination in Edmonton-Wetaskiwin where he now lives thanks to where Elections Canada decided to draw a line across the current riding. With Tim running in Edm-Millwoods, this now leaves the newly redrawn riding of Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan up for grabs with no incumbent running.
Stay tuned.
Sunday, February 02, 2014
Warren Kinsella: ten reasons why Trudeau’s Senate move is a bad one.
If you have not read Warren Kinsella's latest.
You really should do so.
Now.
> > > http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/
You can thank me later.
You really should do so.
Now.
> > > http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/
You can thank me later.
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.fmSHEWeB.d
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.fmSHEWeB.d
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz0.dpuf
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz0.dpuf
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at:
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at:
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz0.d
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz0.d
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
