Quote:
Originally posted by floydthebarber
The fact that they spent our money badly and/or accounted for it badly should be enough to toss the Libs out. A billion here a couple billion there...
Maybe the sponsorship scandle wasn't large scale to you, but to me and many others it's huge. The act itself of corruption and decet is the issue, not the dollar amount.
|
Hmm? I thought the sponsorship scandal consisted of the Liberals being overly spendy and insufficiently accountable on ads during the Quebec referendum?
The government thought it was going to lose the referendum, so they threw money at ad agencies. Some was lost to corruption, and too much of it wasn't accounted for properly.
The error seemed to me to be on the side of poor accounting, due to panic over the possible breakup of Canada.
Did I miss something in the scandal?
Quote:
|
With respect, the NDP ran this province into the ground in the ten years they were in power. The idea of a federal NDP is quite scary to me. I do agree that a minority gov would be the best choice for all concerned.
|
*nod*, hence my fear of an inexperienced party running the government. Layton seems to have a decent set of plans, and is actually includes means of paying for the promises he made, unlike most of the other parties...
Quote:
Reform 3.0....
|
/shrug, the Reform party split off from the PC, tried to merge (hence Alliance, aka Reform 2.0), that failed. They then planted a stooge into the PC party, who managed to become the leader of the PC party by promising not to merge with the Reform party. They then did a hostile takeover of the PC party by flooding it's membership rolls with new members.
The former leaders of the Reform party 2.0 then became the leaders of the new party.
Former leaders of the PC party (Joe Clark, for instance) claim that the Liberals are a less horrible choice than the new party.
It looks a hell of alot more like Reform 3.0 than PC 2.0 from here.
I wouldn't mind having PC 2.0 in power in the country. They'd probably clean out some crud.
So, before I'd trust Reform 3.0 to be a reasonable party, I'd want to test it in either an opposition or a minority government role. Right now, they are a party that hasn't even bothered to gather to form a policy. Why wouldn't Harper do the same things as leader of the Conservative party that he was going to do as leader of Reform 2.0?