Dion says green shift still a go.
RUEZ @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:30 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
Between being elected and the next election. A new election means the govt is no longer in charge officially for a brief period and a whole new set of promises are made.
Still, there are no cons who can bitch about Liberal broken promises when Harper has been far worse.
Still, there are no cons who can bitch about Liberal broken promises when Harper has been far worse.
So Chretien said he kept 78% of his promises, assuming that was in his first term of four years with a majority government. You want to compare that to Steven Harpers 2.5 years of minority government? That doesn't really seem like it's comparable.
DerbyX @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:00 am
RUEZ RUEZ:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Between being elected and the next election. A new election means the govt is no longer in charge officially for a brief period and a whole new set of promises are made.
Still, there are no cons who can bitch about Liberal broken promises when Harper has been far worse.
Still, there are no cons who can bitch about Liberal broken promises when Harper has been far worse.
So Chretien said he kept 78% of his promises, assuming that was in his first term of four years with a majority government. You want to compare that to Steven Harpers 2.5 years of minority government? That doesn't really seem like it's comparable.
Chretien didn't say it. The people vetting him did, the same ones vetting Harper. In addition, I most certainly can make the comparison because its in response to ridenhacks attempt to villify Dion by casting aspertions on the Liberals not getting things done by referencing Chretiens red book. By that act I am well justified in pointing out that contrary to his hackery Chretien did better then most PMs for keeping promises.
In addition, if you think Harpers 2.5 years of minority rule clears him of not getting things done then why was Martin attacked for only getting some 65% done?
On one hand we have you con supporters crowing about how well Harper did with his minority govt pushing things through and on the other we have you claiming that Harper was justified in breaking his own election law because parliment was dysfunctional.
Its hypocracy at its worst.
RUEZ @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:16 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
RUEZ RUEZ:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Between being elected and the next election. A new election means the govt is no longer in charge officially for a brief period and a whole new set of promises are made.
Still, there are no cons who can bitch about Liberal broken promises when Harper has been far worse.
Still, there are no cons who can bitch about Liberal broken promises when Harper has been far worse.
So Chretien said he kept 78% of his promises, assuming that was in his first term of four years with a majority government. You want to compare that to Steven Harpers 2.5 years of minority government? That doesn't really seem like it's comparable.
Chretien didn't say it. The people vetting him did, the same ones vetting Harper. In addition, I most certainly can make the comparison because its in response to ridenhacks attempt to villify Dion by casting aspertions on the Liberals not getting things done by referencing Chretiens red book. By that act I am well justified in pointing out that contrary to his hackery Chretien did better then most PMs for keeping promises.
In addition, if you think Harpers 2.5 years of minority rule clears him of not getting things done then why was Martin attacked for only getting some 65% done?
On one hand we have you con supporters crowing about how well Harper did with his minority govt pushing things through and on the other we have you claiming that Harper was justified in breaking his own election law because parliment was dysfunctional.
Its hypocracy at its worst.
Actually I did some looking around because you didn't answer my question. In 1996 Chretien released a record of achievement claiming 78% of the promises in the red book were accomplished. That's debatable, but regardless I have little problem with Chretien other than his useless gun control policies, and the gutting of the military. I still hold that it is far easier for Chretien to accomplish his goals under a majority government.
Also I don't believe that Steven Harper broke any election laws. The fixed election law never removed the ability of the governor general to dissolve parliament early.
DerbyX @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:23 am
Harper brought the law in.
From his own platform:
Fixed Election Dates
$1:
“A Conservative government will: Introduce legislation modeled on the BC and Ontario laws requiring fixed election dates every four years, except when a government loses the confidence of the House (in which case an election would be held immediately, and the subsequent election would follow four years later).” (”Stand Up For Canada”, Conservative Party of Canada Federal Election Platform 2006, p. 44)
He clearly broke the spirit if not the letter of the law. Of course by the letter of the Law the GG holds all the power and can theoretically run the govt him/herselves but I don't think we would all just sit back and take it if she did under the theory "its not technically against the law".
Aside from the fact that Harper kept as many promises as he broke, he broke the very law that conservative pundits hailed as a big step forward in that it didn't allow any govt to call an election when the winds favoured them. Harper clearly saw the impact the scandal accumulations were having and wanted to call an election while he was still riding high and before the economy tanked (though it went south far quicker then he anticipated).
That is breaking his own election law.