Wherever they spend the money, it will be spent on education. Without the money, the various school boards were going to have budget problems and may have had to take drastic action like laying off teachers and support staff. The funding formula may be at fault here.train said:Most of the money goes to teachers salaries of course.
I normally avoid using one wrong to justify another but WTF do you think Tory was doing with his offer to fund faith based schools. That wasn't a bribe?
McGuinty had forecast steady increases in school funding as far back as his 2004 budget. The numbers have been adjusted in the meantime but the general trajectory was decided quite a while ago. Check slide #6.
http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/on_budget_2004/pdf/final_presentation.pdf
The election isn't until Oct. Shool starts in about 2 weeks. So a bribe isn't the only possible scenario here. The timing could just as easily be about injecting some much needed funding for the coming school year.
My second sentence (that all politicians are indirectly bribing us when they make election promises) was intended to point out the absurdity of calling this particular initiative a bribe when any new measure designed to benefit Ontarians could just as easily be construed as a bribe. We want our leaders to come up with solutions to our problems. I'd be worried about a guy who promised to do absolutely nothing that could possibly be construed as a bribe because he'd be totally handcuffed and we'd get nothing useful out of him.train said:Which is it? The first sentence or the second? I'd say it was the second and that you would have to be pretty naive given the timing to see it as anything other than a bribe. But I I agree that all parties do it.