A question about the effects of corruption
I’ve been wondering about the political effects of known corruption, so I’m floating this as a question.
Canada is still suffering from the fallout of the sponsorship scandal, whose effects were such that many in Quebec still hate the federal Liberal party with a white-hot hatred, the party was brought low and the Harper government rules all. Nobody likes being had, but we’re all suffering from the punishment Quebec has meted out to the federal Liberals.
But it’s become clear that the Charest government is up past its elbows in corruption, with dodgy deals galore accruing to it – and yet it seems likely that if an election is called for this autumn, Jean Charest will be back in power for another 4 to 5 years. Are people not just as insulted by what we’ve seen his party doing? Have we not also been had by the Charest Liberals? Why doesn’t this matter?
Besides that, a discussion a few threads down is about the Tremblay administration. Before the last municipal election stories were coming out about brown envelopes at city hall, and we’ve seen city hall people turning against each other, and serious questions of corruption and collusion in connection with the city’s construction contracts. But it seems all too likely that in 2013, Tremblay will be re-elected if he runs again. Have we not been had by Gérald Tremblay and the people he chose to associate himself with? Why doesn’t this matter?