Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Conservative Party pay her salary and expenses? If so, well, you can feel free to mock it all you want, but you can't say taxpayer dollars are going towards making Steve look pretty. It's the donors to the Conservative Party.
Who, granted, do get a tax break for making such donations. But then you're getting pretty oblique...
Every report coming from Ottawa is that the government has confirmed the sylist is on the public tit, even though the CTV story didn't turn up any records to confirm.
Note that PMO at no point contradicted that the stylist is on the public payroll.
If you were correct, then it is just a raft of silliness and largesse. As it stands, it is a raft of silliness and largesse that you and I are paying for.
Fair enough. I thought I read the other day she was on the party payroll. If she's on the public payroll it's a fairly dumb move by the Conservatives. It's this kind of stuff that tends to drive the Canadian public nuts. And it's free ammo for the Opposition for months.
And, you know, I don't begrduge him having someone to help with his style. He's clearly hopless at it (along with a lot of men) and public appearance counts in politics whether we like to admit it or not.
But you pay it out of your own pocket or the party's. Not out of the taxpayers'.
The problem with the stylist is not merely that she is being paid for with taxpayer dollars, but that the CPC government has hidden that employment record. Now, what legitimate reason can anyone come up with to hide her publicly funded employment from the taxpayers? That is what makes this story troublesome for me, and why Harper and company have some serious explaining to do here.
6 comments:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Conservative Party pay her salary and expenses? If so, well, you can feel free to mock it all you want, but you can't say taxpayer dollars are going towards making Steve look pretty. It's the donors to the Conservative Party.
Who, granted, do get a tax break for making such donations. But then you're getting pretty oblique...
She's on the public purse.
Craig:
Every report coming from Ottawa is that the government has confirmed the sylist is on the public tit, even though the CTV story didn't turn up any records to confirm.
Note that PMO at no point contradicted that the stylist is on the public payroll.
If you were correct, then it is just a raft of silliness and largesse. As it stands, it is a raft of silliness and largesse that you and I are paying for.
Fair enough. I thought I read the other day she was on the party payroll. If she's on the public payroll it's a fairly dumb move by the Conservatives. It's this kind of stuff that tends to drive the Canadian public nuts. And it's free ammo for the Opposition for months.
And, you know, I don't begrduge him having someone to help with his style. He's clearly hopless at it (along with a lot of men) and public appearance counts in politics whether we like to admit it or not.
But you pay it out of your own pocket or the party's. Not out of the taxpayers'.
I thought I read the other day she was on the party payroll.
That was Manning's image consultant on the party payroll.
Harper led a low-level guerilla war against that when he was an MP the first time, from 1993 to 1997.
The problem with the stylist is not merely that she is being paid for with taxpayer dollars, but that the CPC government has hidden that employment record. Now, what legitimate reason can anyone come up with to hide her publicly funded employment from the taxpayers? That is what makes this story troublesome for me, and why Harper and company have some serious explaining to do here.
Post a Comment