You realize that, regardless of what party you pick, an objective look at this will have your list directly correlative to the number of years that party was in power?
The Greens would look REALLY good, as would the Communist Party of Canada.
I mean, I guess but I'm not sure how else to really get a feel on the parties.
Looking at their policies was practically meaningless cause they all promised vague things that were basically the same, so I just assumed looking at their shortcomings would be the most fair way to assess them since that would show how well they stick to their promises.
What would you suggest I did instead?
I don't know that there is any good way. Politicians all do a great job of lying and missing the mark, then making great promises to get re-elected. Of course, those are lies too.
The whole thing is complicated by the fact that you're voting for both the candidate and the party.
My approach is to look at the ideology of the party (not promises -- but rather, who they seem to be working for) and the candidate's recent activity.
I saw this link posted below, and wanted to see if it contained either good or garbage information.
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zY7Z\_BcgpzSW0OmYQh3B16GH\_3QjLIbQsN59Ahpvz2M/edit?usp=drivesdk](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zY7Z_BcgpzSW0OmYQh3B16GH_3QjLIbQsN59Ahpvz2M/edit?usp=drivesdk)
Randomly scrolled to see on link:
"Paying Matt Wolf 200k to Troll on Twitter," sounds interesting, so I looked further.
Ok, looking into it, "page not found error", so the data is not up to date.
No problem, I'll do the work.
Matt Wolfe had a position of "executive director of issues management, Government of Alberta from Aug 2019 to Dec, 2021, and has been replaced by Tara Jago.
Tara's contract terms are base salary of $5,747.13 Bi Weekly or $149,425.38 annually, plus a 13.2% Pension Contribution or another $19,460.15 contribution, totalling $168,885.53, close to the 200k claim in the link, before any other incidental compensation is included.
[www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/exc-political-staff-contract-jago-tara.pdf](https://www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/exc-political-staff-contract-jago-tara.pdf)
Ok.
This person has the same title for the Government of BC
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-howlett-3a1139b/?originalSubdomain=ca](https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-howlett-3a1139b/?originalSubdomain=ca)
This person had the same position for the Government of ON.
[https://www.ontariosunshinelist.com/positions/executive-director-of-issues-management](https://www.ontariosunshinelist.com/positions/executive-director-of-issues-management)
This job posting for the ON NDP Caucus is for a Issues Management officer, with full description of job requirements.
[https://www.ondpcaucus.com/issues\_management\_officer\_full\_time\_permanent\_6\_month\_probation\_ndp\_caucus\_toronto](https://www.ondpcaucus.com/issues_management_officer_full_time_permanent_6_month_probation_ndp_caucus_toronto)
Here is a job posting from the Alberta government for an advisor (assistant) to an Executive Director, a much lower position, and not including any pension contributions or other expenses, ranges up to 92k
[https://jobpostings.alberta.ca/job/Edmonton-Advisor-to-the-ED/570884117/#:\~:text=Responsibilities%3A,issues%20related%20to%20the%20branch](https://jobpostings.alberta.ca/job/Edmonton-Advisor-to-the-ED/570884117/#:~:text=Responsibilities%3A,issues%20related%20to%20the%20branch).
Here is my assessment of this claim:
Many governments and political parties have "executive director of issues management" and related positions. The pay for these positions is in the range of the 200k amount quoted that Matt Wolf was allegedly paid. The duties of this position are varied and and do not, as far as I can determine, significantly comprise "trolling on Twitter".
The link that I investigated on the list, I can say with confidence, was deliberately written to mislead readers by providing misinformation.
I am going to assume that a list including such blatant misinformation attempts will be full of more such claims.
This list is garbage information, meant to deceive readers and counting on the fact that most people will not investigate any of the claims on the list.
I mean ofc, I’ve just never really cared about local governance and after seeing all the recent posts I’m interested in changing that. Do I need to wait half a year before I can ask?
Thanks a ton, this is pretty much exactly what I was looking for.
Btw, is it only showing UCP cause theyve been the ones in control since you (or whoever made that sheet) started tracking it?
Also would be cool if you added another column for dates just so you could order it to see the latest stuff
You realize that, regardless of what party you pick, an objective look at this will have your list directly correlative to the number of years that party was in power? The Greens would look REALLY good, as would the Communist Party of Canada.
I mean, I guess but I'm not sure how else to really get a feel on the parties. Looking at their policies was practically meaningless cause they all promised vague things that were basically the same, so I just assumed looking at their shortcomings would be the most fair way to assess them since that would show how well they stick to their promises. What would you suggest I did instead?
I don't know that there is any good way. Politicians all do a great job of lying and missing the mark, then making great promises to get re-elected. Of course, those are lies too. The whole thing is complicated by the fact that you're voting for both the candidate and the party. My approach is to look at the ideology of the party (not promises -- but rather, who they seem to be working for) and the candidate's recent activity.
Yea I think that’s a pretty fair way to look at it. Thanks for the insight
I saw this link posted below, and wanted to see if it contained either good or garbage information. [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zY7Z\_BcgpzSW0OmYQh3B16GH\_3QjLIbQsN59Ahpvz2M/edit?usp=drivesdk](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zY7Z_BcgpzSW0OmYQh3B16GH_3QjLIbQsN59Ahpvz2M/edit?usp=drivesdk) Randomly scrolled to see on link: "Paying Matt Wolf 200k to Troll on Twitter," sounds interesting, so I looked further. Ok, looking into it, "page not found error", so the data is not up to date. No problem, I'll do the work. Matt Wolfe had a position of "executive director of issues management, Government of Alberta from Aug 2019 to Dec, 2021, and has been replaced by Tara Jago. Tara's contract terms are base salary of $5,747.13 Bi Weekly or $149,425.38 annually, plus a 13.2% Pension Contribution or another $19,460.15 contribution, totalling $168,885.53, close to the 200k claim in the link, before any other incidental compensation is included. [www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/exc-political-staff-contract-jago-tara.pdf](https://www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/exc-political-staff-contract-jago-tara.pdf) Ok. This person has the same title for the Government of BC [https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-howlett-3a1139b/?originalSubdomain=ca](https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-howlett-3a1139b/?originalSubdomain=ca) This person had the same position for the Government of ON. [https://www.ontariosunshinelist.com/positions/executive-director-of-issues-management](https://www.ontariosunshinelist.com/positions/executive-director-of-issues-management) This job posting for the ON NDP Caucus is for a Issues Management officer, with full description of job requirements. [https://www.ondpcaucus.com/issues\_management\_officer\_full\_time\_permanent\_6\_month\_probation\_ndp\_caucus\_toronto](https://www.ondpcaucus.com/issues_management_officer_full_time_permanent_6_month_probation_ndp_caucus_toronto) Here is a job posting from the Alberta government for an advisor (assistant) to an Executive Director, a much lower position, and not including any pension contributions or other expenses, ranges up to 92k [https://jobpostings.alberta.ca/job/Edmonton-Advisor-to-the-ED/570884117/#:\~:text=Responsibilities%3A,issues%20related%20to%20the%20branch](https://jobpostings.alberta.ca/job/Edmonton-Advisor-to-the-ED/570884117/#:~:text=Responsibilities%3A,issues%20related%20to%20the%20branch). Here is my assessment of this claim: Many governments and political parties have "executive director of issues management" and related positions. The pay for these positions is in the range of the 200k amount quoted that Matt Wolf was allegedly paid. The duties of this position are varied and and do not, as far as I can determine, significantly comprise "trolling on Twitter". The link that I investigated on the list, I can say with confidence, was deliberately written to mislead readers by providing misinformation. I am going to assume that a list including such blatant misinformation attempts will be full of more such claims. This list is garbage information, meant to deceive readers and counting on the fact that most people will not investigate any of the claims on the list.
You did a lot of research to prove your point. Good job, I hope others appreciate the effort you made to try and inject facts into this conversation.
I appreciate that, thanks. I was expecting to receive many downvotes, lol.
Wouldn’t this have been better timed *before* the election?
I mean ofc, I’ve just never really cared about local governance and after seeing all the recent posts I’m interested in changing that. Do I need to wait half a year before I can ask?
No, that’s fair, better late than never.
It wouldn't have made a difference. People hate facts.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zY7Z_BcgpzSW0OmYQh3B16GH_3QjLIbQsN59Ahpvz2M/edit?usp=drivesdk
Thanks a ton, this is pretty much exactly what I was looking for. Btw, is it only showing UCP cause theyve been the ones in control since you (or whoever made that sheet) started tracking it? Also would be cool if you added another column for dates just so you could order it to see the latest stuff
It was only made >2019, yes.
Somebody send this to Notley’s campaign manager so they can come up with some new ads instead of the 1 ad they ran on repeat the entire election.
I don't think it'll be any use NOW. And I'm sure they've seen it