Election promises and 'caveat emptor'

[theloniusfleabag]

My wife and I find all of these 'promises' from every party a bit much to swallow, given the fact that 'election promises are made to be broken'. If the politicians see their promises as a 'selling feature', is it not fraudulent if they don't deliver? We are giving them the right to withhold (tax) money from our paycheques for the 'goods and services' promised in exchange, so why shouldn't we have legal recourse if we get swindled?

[dugger]

Don't forget most of the politicians are lawyers....that must tell you something...Just have a look at what Mcguinty did in Ontario. He lied his way into office and then broke all the promises he made. Politicians have one thing in common...they can't be trusted.

Overpaid stiffs who couldn't care less about the people who pay their salaries....and their pensions...but that's another story,, :angry:

[cybercoma]

My wife and I find all of these 'promises' from every party a bit much to swallow, given the fact that 'election promises are made to be broken'. If the politicians see their promises as a 'selling feature', is it not fraudulent if they don't deliver? We are giving them the right to withhold (tax) money from our paycheques  for the 'goods and services' promised in exchange, so why shouldn't we have legal recourse if we get swindled?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately their ideas have to pass the votes in parliament. They could make all the promises in the world, if the MPs shoot them down when it comes time to put pen to paper....well....

[FTA Lawyer]

My wife and I find all of these 'promises' from every party a bit much to swallow, given the fact that 'election promises are made to be broken'. If the politicians see their promises as a 'selling feature', is it not fraudulent if they don't deliver? We are giving them the right to withhold (tax) money from our paycheques  for the 'goods and services' promised in exchange, so why shouldn't we have legal recourse if we get swindled?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

About all you can do is vote against them next time and make them pay for their dishonesty...which us Canadians are pretty poor at.

I suppose you could lobby government to institute recall legislation like in California, but I'm not so sure that such a system actually leads to better government.

You do raise an interesting point though...with the number of "political extremists" out there, I am totally surprised that no-one has tried to file a private prosecution for fraud against the Liberal Party following the Gomery Inquiry.

Environmental protectionist groups have been using private prosecutions for years to attempt to gain control over issues of importance to their agenda...with mixed success.

The process would be a nightmare for the Attorney General of the Province in which the private prosecution was started because convention dictates that the AG reviews all private prosecutions and by prerogative, stays those without merit and takes over carriage of the prosecution of those that are potentially valid.

Maybe this idea has legs...who out there wants to pick up where Alan Cutler and Sheila Fraser and John Gomery left off?

FTA

[scribblet]

My wife and I find all of these 'promises' from every party a bit much to swallow, given the fact that 'election promises are made to be broken'. If the politicians see their promises as a 'selling feature', is it not fraudulent if they don't deliver? We are giving them the right to withhold (tax) money from our paycheques  for the 'goods and services' promised in exchange, so why shouldn't we have legal recourse if we get swindled?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good points, but unless we have a majority government its not likely a lot of these promises can be passed. What I would like to see is accountability, politicians held to account for all their promises. I would also like to see a mandatory public forensic accounting of all government monies, before each election. That way, no one can say they were tricked, or the finances were not what they were lead to believe etc. etc.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

The process would be a nightmare for the Attorney General of the Province in which the private prosecution was started because convention dictates that the AG reviews all private prosecutions and by prerogative, stays those without merit and takes over carriage of the prosecution of those that are potentially valid.

I was under the impression that 'breach of promise' has been deleted from the books as an offence. There used to be a lot of cases of it regarding 'engagements to be married', but as I hear that the courts will only deal with matters that are 'breach of contract' now.

Would a 'class action suit' be possible? (for, say, false advertising?) Some of these 'election promises' are offering specific dollar values, and it would be easier to prove 'demonstrable loss' in these cases, possible even in the case of the Liberal's failure to abolish the GST.

scriblett,

Good points, but unless we have a majority government its not likely a lot of these promises can be passed.

Then they should not be able to make promises that they cannot keep. It is similar to a car manufacturer saying, "If you buy one of our cars, I promise that our engineers will develop, and equip your car, with a device that will give you 100,000 km/tank of gas".

[scribblet]

scriblett,

Good points, but unless we have a majority government its not likely a lot of these promises can be passed.

Then they should not be able to make promises that they cannot keep. It is similar to a car manufacturer saying, "If you buy one of our cars, I promise that our engineers will develop, and equip your car, with a device that will give you 100,000 km/tank of gas".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Problem there, is no party knows how many seats they will get, I think most voters realize that. The intention is there (well for the most part) to keep promises, but who knows how many seats they will get.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear scriblett,

Problem there, is no party knows how many seats they will get, I think most voters realize that. The intention is there (well for the most part) to keep promises, but who knows how many seats they will get.

I realize that certain things may or may not be possible with or without a majority, but the politicians aren't even qualifying their statements with that. Further, as a business owner, I do not have the luxury of doing the same thing, ie; advertising something and then claiming that it wasn't my fault that I wasn't able to deliver...it is against the law.

[FTA Lawyer]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

The process would be a nightmare for the Attorney General of the Province in which the private prosecution was started because convention dictates that the AG reviews all private prosecutions and by prerogative, stays those without merit and takes over carriage of the prosecution of those that are potentially valid.

I was under the impression that 'breach of promise' has been deleted from the books as an offence. There used to be a lot of cases of it regarding 'engagements to be married', but as I hear that the courts will only deal with matters that are 'breach of contract' now.

Would a 'class action suit' be possible? (for, say, false advertising?) Some of these 'election promises' are offering specific dollar values, and it would be easier to prove 'demonstrable loss' in these cases, possible even in the case of the Liberal's failure to abolish the GST.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess I should apologize because my last post was actually going off-topic. The private prosecution notion was only directed at situations of past conduct which could be potentially fraudulent...like the sponsorship scandal.

On the issue of election promises made but not kept, I'd have to do some research to figure if any common-law cause of action could be made out. As far as I'm aware, you can still sue for breach of promise to marry if the circumstances are right, but the reality is that you will at best win a small fraction of the total cost you incur for running such a claim, so nobody does it anymore.

FTA

[hiti]

Promises are vote-buying and every day Harper has been selling.

The voters don't seem to be fooled. They know election rhetoric when they hear it.

Amazing that it took 12 years for the liberals to make good on their child-care promise. Maybe all it took was a change of leadership within the party.

Any conservative promises will not be kept because they have a snowballs chance in h*ll of forming a majority government and they will never get the chance to change Canada to their ideology.

[scribblet]

Promises are vote-buying and every day Harper has been selling.

The voters don't seem to be fooled. They know election rhetoric when they hear it.

Amazing that it took 12 years for the liberals to make good on their child-care promise. Maybe all it took was a change of leadership within the party.

Any conservative promises will not be kept because they have a snowballs chance in h*ll of forming a majority government and they will never get the chance to change Canada to their ideology.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And everyday Martin has been selling, no difference.

[hiti]

Promises are vote-buying and every day Harper has been selling.

The voters don't seem to be fooled. They know election rhetoric when they hear it.

Amazing that it took 12 years for the liberals to make good on their child-care promise. Maybe all it took was a change of leadership within the party.

Any conservative promises will not be kept because they have a snowballs chance in h*ll of forming a majority government and they will never get the chance to change Canada to their ideology.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And everyday Martin has been selling, no difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Giving the voter choice and the polls reflect this. So we no longer will hear rantings of "Martin buying votes" from the CPC since all we have heard these past nine days is Harper's "me too" policies.

[Argus]

Environmental protectionist groups have been using private prosecutions for years to attempt to gain control over issues of importance to their agenda...with mixed success.

The process would be a nightmare for the Attorney General of the Province in which the private prosecution was started because convention dictates that the AG reviews all private prosecutions and by prerogative, stays those without merit and takes over carriage of the prosecution of those that are potentially valid.

Maybe this idea has legs...who out there wants to pick up where Alan Cutler and Sheila Fraser and John Gomery left off?

FTA

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean who here has oodles of time and money to waste?

The Ottawa Citizen is seeking leave from the province to launch a private prosecution for usery against the city's payday loan outlets. Could be interesting if they're given permission and it goes through. There's really no question they are wildly over the legal limit for interest and charges on loans.

For that reason, I'm presuming the Ontario AG will refuse permission.

[Argus]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

The process would be a nightmare for the Attorney General of the Province in which the private prosecution was started because convention dictates that the AG reviews all private prosecutions and by prerogative, stays those without merit and takes over carriage of the prosecution of those that are potentially valid.

I was under the impression that 'breach of promise' has been deleted from the books as an offence. There used to be a lot of cases of it regarding 'engagements to be married', but as I hear that the courts will only deal with matters that are 'breach of contract' now.

Would a 'class action suit' be possible? (for, say, false advertising?) Some of these 'election promises' are offering specific dollar values, and it would be easier to prove 'demonstrable loss' in these cases, possible even in the case of the Liberal's failure to abolish the GST.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess I should apologize because my last post was actually going off-topic. The private prosecution notion was only directed at situations of past conduct which could be potentially fraudulent...like the sponsorship scandal.

On the issue of election promises made but not kept, I'd have to do some research to figure if any common-law cause of action could be made out. As far as I'm aware, you can still sue for breach of promise to marry if the circumstances are right, but the reality is that you will at best win a small fraction of the total cost you incur for running such a claim, so nobody does it anymore.

FTA

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the NCC tried to sue Dalton McGuinty for breach of promise. He signed a written promise not to raise taxes without having a referendum, and based much of his campaing on that. Then renegged almost as soon as he was in power. The courts basically said politicians can't be held liable for living up to their promises as everyone knows they're all liars anyway.