Democratic Deficit
OTTAWA – Yesterday, Paul Martin repeated his mistaken assertion that he has never broken an electoral promise. The claim is simply incredible. In truth, Paul Martin and the Liberal Party have repeatedly broken promises on some of their flagship initiatives. What follows is an extended version of “Reality Check” highlighting some of the most memorable broken promises of the past
eighteen months.Paul Martin on broken promises:
“I would never stay in office if I did not keep my promises,” he said (The Record, June 2, 2004).
“A government that does not keep its promises is a government that does not have the moral authority to govern” (Toronto Star, December 16, 2005).
Promises Paul Martin has broken since the 2004 Election:
18. Mr. Martin talked about reforming the Senate, but went ahead and appointed Senators the same old way, including disgraced former Liberal cabinet minister Art Eggleton, Liberal organizers like Jim Cowan, and Mr. Martin’s close friends Francis Fox and Dennis Dawson.
posted by calgarygrit at
12:42 p.m.
11 Comments:
Do as I say, not as I do.
By
Anonymous, at 12:55 p.m.
All the Conservatives talk about accountability, ethics and the democratic deficit was just electioneering, nothing more.
By
Anonymous, at 12:58 p.m.
Sean; Yes, I do think opposition will be good to this blog. I was a little concerned that, without Paul, I'd have no one to kick around, but I'm now convinced Harper will provide plenty of material.
By
calgarygrit, at 1:20 p.m.
Nit-picking: Martin should have called it a "democracy deficit", not a "democratic deficit". No deficit is democratic, unless of course the electorate says, "Sure, run a deficit!", in which case would be.
By
Aeolus, at 1:36 p.m.
The type font seems to have shrunk to a small meek size.
The copy will have to size up a littlle so that the kicking around is more profound and easier to read. TG
By
TonyGuitar, at 1:37 p.m.
In fairness, Harper made no promise that he would ban floor crossings. To the extent to which Vancouver-Kingsway voted for Martin as opposed to Emerson, Martin has resigned from his mandate and neither Harper nor Emerson can really be blamed for that.
Also, Fortier could have been appointed directly to cabinet instead of through the Senate à la the entire US cabinet, which would have precluded all Senate appointment criticism. But appointing him to the Senate at least allows Fortier to be questioned in Parliament.
Besides some insights on Montreal or Vancouver issues, Fortier can authoritatively comment on likely capital market reactions to cabinet decisions and Emerson brings many skills to the softwood trade file, so if there is trahison des clercs here, at least the dirty deal bought some better government.
- Conservative apologist
By
Anonymous, at 2:01 p.m.
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
-- The Who
By
Anonymous, at 2:12 p.m.
James Moore is going to cry like a baby by the time we're finished with him in QP.
By
Mark, at 6:56 p.m.
The event clearly sends out the message that Harper is really up to something radical. Is assigning a Liberal-turned-Conservative suddenly for a Cabinet post and a non-mp cabinet minister ethical and accountable? Give me a break!
By
Anonymous, at 7:04 p.m.
You know 18-24 months is a LONG time in politics. Anyone else itching to find out what will happen if Fortier changes his mind?
The problem with a "temporary" appointment to the Senate is that it's a totally MADE UP thing. Nothing in the constitution about "temporary" Senators. So if Fortier changes his mind there's pretty much nothing that can be done. He's there 'til he's 75.
But, I guess no one would ever change their mind.
Oh, wait... sorry Mr. Emerson.
By
Lord Kitchener's Own, at 7:04 p.m.
hey are all the same.
By
tuxedo shirts, at 7:27 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home