Government Already Lying About New Audit That Hasn’t Even Been Published Yet?
Okay, before I go on, let me just say that this has become commonplace under the Harper regime. Nevertheless, the rest of the media is sagely playing dumb about the blatant illegalities at work here, so I’m going to play equally conveniently dumb going the other direction. As you will recall, Auditor Gener’s reports can never under any circumstances whatsoever be shown to anyone outside the civil service until they’re tabled in Parliament. The Auditor-General said so when draft reports of the G8/G20 debacle leaked during last year’s election campaign.
So I challenge you to find some logical way of reconciling the following two statements that is actually legal:
Once a report has been finalized, and about a week before it is tabled, the Auditor General offers to brief Cabinet ministers whose organizations are included in the report. Until then, the Office deals only with public servants, giving them an opportunity to check facts, provide additional information, and respond to recommendations. (Auditor General’s website)
A draft copy of the scathing review, circulating in Ottawa for weeks, suggests the air force didn’t do its pricing homework and government officials failed to follow procurement rules, those who’ve read it say. Senior officials say the Auditor-General’s harsh review is behind the Harper government’s change in posture over the last few weeks, where a hard-line message of commitment has softened into skepticism about the international program, which is billions of dollars off target and years behind schedule. (Globe & Mail)
Now that they have a majority, the Conservatives have hypocritically remembered Parliamentary supremacy, and I’m sure, therefore, that they will no doubt be interested in finding out who is responsible for leaking copies of the Auditor General’s report in advance of their tabling in the only body of government to which the Auditor General is actually responsible.
Anyways, I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. According to the Liar in Chief, “the contract we’ve signed shelters us from any increase in… costs.” When can we expect Stephen Harper’s apology for telling such a blatant lie?
Tweet
Sam Gunsch
re: blatant lying in politics, lack of media coverage
I wonder if historians would think it feasible to do an analysis that considered whether current levels are out of line with historical norms?
How do we really know that the Liar in question has set new high marks in mendacity of all forms?
I think he has, but how much higher if so? And is it just the right-wing tilt of most media at present leading to little coverage, or is just that journalists/columnists on the whole write this stuff off as typical political behavior, not worth reporting.
And is it possible that Harper’s nasty brand of arrogance draws more attention to his lies?
I also recall Lyin’ Brian eventually sticking to Mulroney.
It’s not worth the work, but it would be interesting to do a comparison somehow.
I guess I’m implying it may be that the case that the general cynicism that all politicians lie regularly is actually warranted.
I’ve seen enough research documenting partisan bias in how we all assess behavior, recall and interpret actions of others, that sometimes I wonder if my assessment is exaggerated.
Sixth Estate
It’s a general charge and there is a sort of timeless element of truth to it.
Today there are simply more things to lie about. An apparatus of protections, ethics codes, etc. have been built into the system, and are flouted with near impunity. A century ago, there was no ethics code, hence, no need to lie about having broken it.
That said, Harper’s team is the most enthusiastic in our history at what I would call the shaping of reality. The ideal Conservative supporter lives within a bubble created by government rhetoric, one in which we didn’t bail out our banks because we have strong regulations, in which we’ve signed a contract protecting us from F-35 cost increases, in which any official disagreement with the leader is the result of hidden Liberals at every level of government, etc., etc. Government scientists are not trustworthy sources. Non-partisan offices like Elections Canada are actually secret Liberals, and therefore not trustworthy. They now have several generations of research in political psychology to help them in this task, and they’re putting it to good use.
Interestingly, not only is evidence unimportant, but for some reason consistency is also unimportant. I’m old enough to remember (which is to say, I’m not 18 years old) when the Conservatives’ main beef with the CBC was that it was too pro-Liberal because it was a government broadcaster and government broadcasters are always controlled by the government in power. Now the problem with the CBC is that it’s a rogue broadcaster that won’t support the government in power.
Sam Gunsch
“Harper’s team is the most enthusiastic in our history at what I would call the shaping of reality.”
That is a very good point about their overall approach to communications. No argument whatsoever about that at all… no need for historical research on the Con Borg re use of propaganda.
My first comment was mostly around comparing Harper with the track record/examples of other party leaders doing what Harper did, saying one thing during an election that in fact never turns out to be the case.
His only weaseling response was that he’d said they’d signed a memorandum of understanding, when he spoke during the election about the jets.
Sam Gunsch
… @Sixth “not only is evidence unimportant,”
This evidence meme re unimportant, ignored or buried or muzzled is quite active with good reason.
see Graham Saul… Rabble.ca analysis in same vein
today re tarsands lobbying in Europe by Con Borg
excerpt: For me, it is clearly part of the larger trend of our current government to make every effort to polarize and politicize this debate, while simultaneously getting rid of any science that would tell them otherwise, or actually inform empirical policy-making. The federal government has plans to gut the Environmental Assessment Act, they muzzle their scientists, and they are cutting funding to important scientific research facilities.”
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/grahamsaul/2012/03/tale-evidence-based-policy-making-and-canadian-government
Question:
Is there a brand addition or tag line possible re evidence hostility in here somewhere…`Harper`s no evidence required Conservative paradigm, manifesto, utopia …
maybe hashtags
noCon evidence necessary
Con faith in no evidence