Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Nope, but it's not intended to. My point that relates to that argument is that the Liberals have a better record (although admittedly not platform) for fiscal responsibility than the conservatives do. So which is more important? What the party has done, or what the party says it will do? (For the record, that's a tough call for anyone to make.)
|
It doesn't make much sense to compare the Liberal Party of 1995 with the party of today. In that sense, there is nothing to say that the Liberal Party wouldn't behave more like the Cretien or King governments who were even more spending crazy than the Conservatives.
I'm no fan of Stephen Harper's fiscal record, but you can't also ignore the reality of the situation when in a Minority government and global recession position. Heck if the Liberals had run on a Paul Martin platform based upon fiscal responsibility and spending cuts they probably wouldn't be reduced to third party status but everyone knows they are just promising to be NDP-lite.
Quote:
|
What the hell? With the 2008 budget update, they were so brazenly uncompromising that the only option they had left when the opposition decided to fight back was basically surrender.
|
Ah yes, that brazenly uncompromising 2008 fiscal conservative position of which you purport did not exist. Of which was so roundly denounced by the (apparently in action only) fiscally conservative Liberal Party.
Bottom line remains; there is only one option in the current election for any rational and fiscally conservative voter.