Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I think that the backlash is around 4 elections in 7 years, with this one kind of being the straw that breaks the camels back. And I agree with some people that have said that Ignatieff has had a surprisingly decent campaign but the bar was set low.
I don't think that any of the campaigns have been awe inspiring at all. And the cynic in me is tired of seeing mass impossible election promises.
I look at the Liberal Campaign and I see vote buying.
I look at the NDP campaign and see the usual stuff.
I'm ok with the conservative platform as its more realistic then the other two major parties.
But I am shocked at how poorly Harper has been campaigning, he learned some key lessons in the last election, but seems to have forgotten the rest.
I would think that we're quibbling about whether a majority is possible, other wise the size of the minority. The only way I think that Ignatieff can close the gap quickly enough is by doing a Mulroney Turner knockout, but I think that Harper will be too well prepared for that.
The cynic is me also thinks that within days of the election that Ignatieff and the NDP will try to take over parliment, the trust level isn't there for me, and then we'll be back to the polls by the fall.
|
I guess that's what I'm missing though. Their platform isn't actually anymore realistic. They say that they can magically find "efficiencies" in government to balance the budget a year early. That sounds good, but in reality its not that simple. Over the past 5 years they've found about $2.7billion.....at least that is the figure I think that is in the Herald article this morning.
Couple that with an untendered purchase of jets (that you know way more about than I do), that everyone seems to think will be way over budget (everyone except the CPC) and you have a platform that could be a complete financial disaster. That's not even getting into the broken promises over the past five years, allegations of scandal and corruption, etc.
Today though we have a new low for the ethics and democracy of the party and its desperation to gain a majority.
The defence for them re-routing the funds is to have John Baird come out and speak about a draft of the report that he has seen that will allegedly exonerate them? That is absolutely unethical, and should not be happening. Baird (A) shouldn't have seen the report and (B) shouldn't be commenting publicly on the contents of the report before they are finalized and released. Its pretty clear that the governing party not only has a financially questionable platform (although its limited to a few questions a day!) and just doesn't care about acting within the bounds of an acceptable standard regarding parliamentary procedure or governance.