Topaz Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 Do you think its right for the Tories to leak this info. that has been leaked?? I think is wrong since they can fired one of the employees that did that back in '06. Again, we have a double standard government from Harper. I wish I was a reporter and I ask how can they leak info. while at the same time fired a worker over the same thing. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 Do you think its right for the Tories to leak this info. that has been leaked?? I think is wrong since they can fired one of the employees that did that back in '06. Again, we have a double standard government from Harper. I wish I was a reporter and I ask how can they leak info. while at the same time fired a worker over the same thing. Paul Martin is the one who started this practice of leaking budget details. He started doing so that any opposition to the budget has been defused as many details have been released to the MSM already and discussed. Crafty move on Martins part that works, Harper merely borrowed it. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Progressive Tory Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 Crafty move on Martins part that works, Harper merely borrowed it. You're right Mr. C. It was Paul Martin who started it, but Harper was very vocal in protest over the practice. That's fine by me though, because we borrowed from his Coalition idea. However, in light of what's at stake, I think it was a good idea. Not an honourable one perhaps, but a wise political move. Get the bad news out of the way. He's fighting for his political life, and needs to use whatever he can to turn public support back his way. I would expect nothing less, no matter who was in power. If he came out today and sprung the notion of a 64 billion dollar deficit, without preparing us for it .... Yikes! I was upset when Paul Martin did it (never liked or voted for him as PM), but he opened the door. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Moonbox Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 Harper's hypocrisy aside, there's absolutely nothing wrong with leaking planned budget details. There's no reason for it to be a secret other than the opposition may not like that they don't have first dibs on the 'spin' they get to put on announcements. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
85RZ500 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 Hypocrisy? I still remember that loud mouthed Liberal asst. PM yelling"we will protect the original meaning of marriage until hell freezes over". My old party, the Liberals, set new standards in hypocrisy, you could say they re-wrote the book. Quote
Molly Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 What is frustrating about it, though, is that a budget is much more than 'the sum of its parts', and when it's handed out piecemeal, for response one line at a time, the 'whole' is obscured. That said, unless leakage unevenly telegraphs something directly useful for speculative purposes, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Mr.Canada Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 What is frustrating about it, though, is that a budget is much more than 'the sum of its parts', and when it's handed out piecemeal, for response one line at a time, the 'whole' is obscured. That said, unless leakage unevenly telegraphs something directly useful for speculative purposes, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. It takes power away from the opposition to criticize it. If all the argumentative parts are leaked out early then they've already been discussed and opinions formed by the public leaving room for last minute tweaking. It doesn't leave much for opposition to argue with making them defend their position if they choose to defeat it, while the Tories can throw their hands up. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Progressive Tory Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 It takes power away from the opposition to criticize it. If all the argumentative parts are leaked out early then they've already been discussed and opinions formed by the public leaving room for last minute tweaking. It doesn't leave much for opposition to argue with making them defend their position if they choose to defeat it, while the Tories can throw their hands up. Like I said, politically speaking it was a good move. Can't remember why Stephen Harper was so mad at Martin for leaking it. Maybe the reasons you suggest. Who knows? Who cares? I want it passed so we can get on with our lives. However, I also want this gov't to be honest with Canadians about the 'balance forward'. The budget officer claims that it is at least 13 billion in the red (before stimulus or new spending). If so, that has to be the starting point. No more lies, no more 'smoke and mirrors' and like Mr. Drummond suggested, I don't want to have to stand on my head to find the number. Cough it up Jimmy. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Topaz Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Posted January 27, 2009 Well, don't hold your breathe... both the NDP and the Bloc say they will vote against it and at 10:00 Wednesday morning before we know another election, coalition or passed by Libs. Isn't there a Fed law saying you shouldn't leak info because it could affect Bay Street. Isn't that the reason the guy was fired?? Don't the media go into lockdown so nothing gets leaked? Double Standard. Right is right and wrong is wrong and I don't care which party or who does it, its wrong. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 Like I said, politically speaking it was a good move. Can't remember why Stephen Harper was so mad at Martin for leaking it. Maybe the reasons you suggest.Who knows? Who cares? I want it passed so we can get on with our lives. However, I also want this gov't to be honest with Canadians about the 'balance forward'. The budget officer claims that it is at least 13 billion in the red (before stimulus or new spending). If so, that has to be the starting point. No more lies, no more 'smoke and mirrors' and like Mr. Drummond suggested, I don't want to have to stand on my head to find the number. Cough it up Jimmy. Well the opposition is in the HoC to oppose the sitting government as they usually have vastly different ideologies. Layton cannot be seen nodding his head at everything PM Harper says just as Harper couldn't when PM Martin was in the PMO. It's just politics, it's a high stakes game played with taxpayer money imo. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Mr.Canada Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 Like I said, politically speaking it was a good move. Can't remember why Stephen Harper was so mad at Martin for leaking it. Maybe the reasons you suggest.Who knows? Who cares? I want it passed so we can get on with our lives. However, I also want this gov't to be honest with Canadians about the 'balance forward'. The budget officer claims that it is at least 13 billion in the red (before stimulus or new spending). If so, that has to be the starting point. No more lies, no more 'smoke and mirrors' and like Mr. Drummond suggested, I don't want to have to stand on my head to find the number. Cough it up Jimmy. Well the opposition is in the HoC to oppose the sitting government as they usually have vastly different ideologies. Layton cannot be seen nodding his head at everything PM Harper says just as Harper couldn't when PM Martin was in the PMO. It's just politics, it's a high stakes game played with taxpayer money imo. As a side note, I'd agree with Topaz for a change and say it's quite an ethically shady practice. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Progressive Tory Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 Well, don't hold your breathe... both the NDP and the Bloc say they will vote against it and at 10:00 Wednesday morning before we know another election, coalition or passed by Libs. Isn't there a Fed law saying you shouldn't leak info because it could affect Bay Street. Isn't that the reason the guy was fired?? Don't the media go into lockdown so nothing gets leaked? Double Standard. Right is right and wrong is wrong and I don't care which party or who does it, its wrong. I forgot about that. It was the big issue for Paul Martin. Jim Flaherty is a Bay Street lawyer, so he should know, I guess. This could affect stock prices, so maybe it is illegal, especially if they have to haul some of the public statements back. Maybe there is cause for concern afterall. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
cybercoma Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) This could affect stock prices, so maybe it is illegal... How does something affecting stock prices make that something illegal? Which law is being broken here? Edited January 27, 2009 by cybercoma Quote
Moonbox Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 It's not illegal at all I don't think. It was criticized by Layton and whoever the Liberal Finance critic was as 'irresponsible' to release before the markets opened. The thought process behind this is that it would start the trading day on a negative note. You have to ask yourself what difference it'll make, however, whether it's released in the morning or afternoon. Zero. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Topaz Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Posted January 27, 2009 How does something affecting stock prices make that something illegal? Which law is being broken here? The same reason why budgets are not announced until AFTER the markets are closed. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 27, 2009 Report Posted January 27, 2009 The same reason why budgets are not announced until AFTER the markets are closed. and then it affects the markets the following morning. Like I said, it makes no difference. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.