Politicians promises are 'empty promises'.

[flamingfingers]

Seems like those of us in BC are not alone in learning this:

Promises vs. 'political speeches:' Tories' honesty questioned on support for injured veterans
By Matthew Coutts
National Affairs Reporter

It was a cross-country battle for injured military veterans on Wednesday, as the prime minister fought back against accusations that promises of support were nothing more than “political speeches.”

Meanwhile in B.C., some of those injured veterans being discussed are fighting for their compensation in a court room.

Opposition parties attacked Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his beleaguered veterans affairs minister during Question Period in Ottawa today, accused of paying lip service to living veterans. A group of veterans known as the Equitas Society have launched a class-action lawsuit suggesting that the benefits paid out under the New Veterans Charter is inadequate, and does not live up to promises the government had previously made.

"This case seeks judicial determination of the nature of the unique relationship between Canada and its Armed Forced, and the obligations that flow therefrom," reads a factum submitted on behalf of the Equitas Society.

"While the issues presented by this case are novel, they are also important ones that deserve a full inquiry and determination after a trial on the merits."

"...these statements were political speeches not intended as commitments or solemn commitments. —Submission to B.C. court from federal gov't

According to the Chronicle Herald, the government had unsuccessfully tried to have the B.C. Supreme Court reject the lawsuit and is now appealing the case to the B.C. Court of Appeal, claiming promises made to veterans were not to be taken as gospel.

In a written submission, government lawyers argued that “these statements were political speeches not intended as commitments or solemn commitments.”

Take a moment to ruminate on that comment, on what it confesses, and then try to take politics seriously ever again.

The Conservative government made speeches – political speeches – promising support to Canada’s war veterans. And those speeches were intended to curry favour from military families and supporters. But not intended to be taken seriously in any particular way.

Essentially, anything we are promised in a politician’s effort to form government is not legal tender. It’s an empty promise. A purposeful white lie, or at least no indication of truth.

On Wednesday, Mulcair challenged Harper over the matter, demanding to know whether Harper agreed that the government didn’t have to live up to political promises.

"Does the prime minister stand by that argument, made by his own lawyer in court, that the government’s promises to veterans were just political speeches?" Mulcair asked.

Harper did not respond to the question but listed off some promises he said were not political rhetoric.

"The reality is that this government has enhanced veterans’ services in many ways," Harper said. He then challenged the NDP’s record of voting on matters related to veteran’s support.

A representative from Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino's office issued this statement to Yahoo Canada News as to why the allegations were not fully addressed:

"The Government does not comment on matters before the court, except to say that this matter deals with something that all parties agreed to under the previous government,” it read.

If we are going to chastise the federal government for its political lies – and there would be plenty of opportunity to do so – we should throw shade where it is due, because they are not alone.

Reporters were forced to keep a “lie counter” during the recent Toronto mayoral race because of Rob and Doug Ford’s tendencies to make inaccurate declarations. Ontario’s previous form of Liberal government couldn’t quite get the truth out about its politically-motivated decision to cancel unpopular gas plants ahead of an election.

Manitoba’s premier was elected on a promise not to raise the provincial sales tax and now faces revolt after doing just that. Quebec’s government campaigned to freeze the cost of subsidized daycare and then raised them anyway.

All of these examples are indications that what is promised on the campaign trail stays on the campaign trail.

Last month, the National Post’s Andrew Coyne tackled the question of political honesty in a column, stating that, “Politics has never been a place for the uncompromisingly honest.”

Coyne wrote:
"But the dishonesty has gotten noticeably worse in recent years — more extreme, more brazen, without even the cover provided by those ancient dodges, to which the politician who does not wish to flat-out lie has always had recourse: evasion, ambiguity, the non-denial denial. Nowadays they don’t even bother.

…

The problem, rather, is that nobody is inclined to believe any of them any more, the honest politicians along with the dirty liars.”

The lack of truth in politics recently led Democracy Watch to launch an “Honesty in Politics Campaign” through which nearly 20,000 Canadians have written to their Members of Parliament demanding the creation of a “strict, easily accessible and effective system to penalize election candidates, politicians, government and political party officials who mislead the public.”

It would be improper to suggest this is a standalone issue. But the matter of political honesty between the Conservative government and Canada’s military veterans has been a tinderbox for years.

Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino’s credibility has devolved to the point of ridicule, with his relationship with those he purports to represent completely botched, following the closing of nine offices across the country, distress over a funding announcement that will be stretched over five decades, and a litany of other snafus.

Last month, Fantino sat down with veterans groups to try to smooth the relationship, but froze several groups out of the meeting.

This is why this issue – this meaningless political promise of support for injured Canada’s veteran – is so prescient. On a landscape of strained relationships and funding letdowns, it is a clear, admitted declaration that campaign promises don’t matter.

The fact that it may be a legitimate argument under parliamentary and legal guidelines doesn’t satisfy the matter at all.

Political promises are empty calories. They’re meaningless to those who make them, and anyone who believes them is being foolish. That’s what is being argued in court, and that’s what we’re seeing on the campaign trail, and in legislature, now more than ever.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada- ... 12299.html

[hobbyguy]

It is actually a serious problem, and one that politicians get away with for two reasons.

The first is the most serious, and that is the general apathy of the public that shows up in poor voter turnout. The indication is that an awful lot of people pay so little attention, that they only get the political advertising, if even that. So politicians being held to account is virtually out the windows, because so many people don't follow along and see if the actions/results match the promises.

The second is partisan blindness. A big chunk of those who do follow what is going on, choose not to see problems where they exist, because "their team" couldn't possibly be inept, lying, or failing to produce results.

As I have said before, every party expresses some good ideas and principles. Do they, when in power actually deliver on those? That isn't limited to the Harper Cons, but they are particularly bad - yes, even outstripping the PET emperor-ship and the Mulroney debacle and the Glen Clark fiasco. Mr Harper expresses some good ideas, and some good intentions, but what is actually being delivered?

Fantino is the poster boy for what is actually being delivered. Substandard, maybe even complete failure grade.

[alfred2]

Trudeau was the worse liar of the lot. Chriethien was a big crook and so it goes. Ndp have not had a chance but i can not see mulclair as a good one being from quebec that is how things are done there.

[flamingfingers]

Open and transparent government - another empty promise.

[steven lloyd]

Stephen Harper used to contend that money does not influence the outcome of elections.

He used to rail against any attempt to limit the amount of money outside advocacy groups could spend during campaigns.

And he used to strenuously object to any attempts to compel those groups to disclose from whom they got their money or how they spent it.

That was, of course, before he became prime minister.

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#128373

yup, a man for our times

[hobbyguy]

Mr Harper has made a number of statements praising veterans, and is always there for photo ops with our veterans and uttering platitudes about thanking them for their service. Big "porky". When you look at what the Harper government has actually done:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/08/veterans-affairs-disability-branch-not-backroom-administration-saw-biggest-job-cuts-records-show/
http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1255752-veterans-affairs-managers-reaped-rewards-after-cuts

And a "porky" within a porky about the cuts. And bonuses for managers who trashed services for disabled vets??

It has been clearly demonstrated that Mr Harper micromanages the government through his PMO, and approves decisions that may have political ramifications. It then becomes a plausible conjecture that his puzzling defense of the buffoon Fantino is because Fantino is merely carrying out Harper's directions. The policies that Fantino is implementing, although clumsily implemented, are Harper's policies.

So in essence, Harper by his actions is saying to our veterans that they don't matter, but mouths the platitudes and grabs the photo ops.

Canada is a better country than that. I am ashamed.

[hobbyguy]

Ummm...Harper improving health care?????

http://healthcoalition.ca/budget-2014-triggers-harpers-plan-to-dismantle-national-health-care/
http://theindependent.ca/2014/12/02/town-hall-implores-canadians-to-resist-harper-governments-massive-health-care-cuts/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/zach-paikin/health-care-transfers_b_1240383.html
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/04/17/by_closing_the_national_health_council_stephen_harper_is_abandoning_national_medicare.html#
http://nshealthcoalition.ca/2014/08/28/release-stand-up-to-harper-health-advocates-tell-premiers/

Read the tea leaves, Harper has left the "nastiest" of his policy for after the next election. Porkies upon porkies by a man who promised "you won't recognize Canada when I'm done with it". That is perhaps the only promise that Harper is keeping.

[Captain Awesome]

Our whole govt system is built on promises. Guy shows up, promises Free Pretzel Tuesdays, everybody votes for him, and he gets elected. Doesn't do anything. Come election time, promises Free Pretzel Tuesday in addition to Free Beer Fridays. Gets elected again. Doesn't do squat, retires with full pension and a place on advisory board for Pretzel And Beer Inc.

Electorate is *bleep*, and promises to never vote for this guy again. So, another guy shows up...

[jimmy4321]

Wish someone would promise to lower the national debt.

[rustled]

Promises are in themselves problematic. If your elected politician promises one thing, but is presented with substantially new circumstances or with significant new information, why would we insist they make good on a promise that is clearly no longer in our best interests? How is staying a bad course that more honourable than changing your mind? It's easy enough from the outside to claim promises were empty, but everything's easier from this side of the floor (especially with the benefit of hindsight).

I think there's quite a difference between an about-face based in pragmatism, and intentional dishonesty. For example, the Liberals pulled PET out of retirement to run against Joe Clark and promised they wouldn't nail us with an 18-cent-per-gallon excise tax, and then promptly brought in their version of the same tax. To me, this was a blatant and intentional lie and it marked the first federal election in which I did not vote Liberal.

[George+]

It was actually John Crosby who screwed up Joe Clark's government.

The last of the liberal Conservatives.

[The Green Barbarian]

It was actually John Crosby who screwed up Joe Clark's government.

The last of the liberal Conservatives.

Care to explain?

[hobbyguy]

And here is the latest porky: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-u-s-price-gap-complaints-could-soon-trigger-investigations-1.2865235

The reports by CTV labelled this as nothing more than a political ploy. It is pretty obvious. Brian Mulroney made the same claim of equalizing prices about NAFTA...ha, ha, ha...sure Brian...tell us another one...so the tradition continues, we still have massive price fixing in gasoline etc., and a "hose 'em" price structure from US companies...

[maple leaf]

Quote Christy Clark " We all say things when we are trying to get elected"

https://twitter.com/justine_hunter/stat ... 4910256128

[flamingfingers]

So the question is:

How do we hold politicians accountable - not only for their 'promises' but for their actual performance through their tenure? Recall is cumbersome, often the electorate is unaware of critical issues (due in large part to our lazy MSM 'reporters' who seldom if ever do actual 'investigative reporting) and the ballot box is 3 years away?

FOI requests are time consuming, costly and often result in page upon page of redacted information.

Any suggestions?