T.J. Burke’s missing blog
Let me say for the record that I think a lot of New Brunswick’s “Blogger General”, N.B. Cabinet Minister T.J. Burke. Since being elected in 2003, he’s matured as a politician, MLA and eventually as a Cabinet Minister. He leaves me with the impression that he’s the kind of guy who sits at cabinet meetings and when everyone else is nodding heads, he jumps in with, “New Brunswickers aren’t going to like this because….” I’m left with that impression because since joining the blogosphere, he’s written some great blogs. These aren’t regurgitations of Liberal news releases or self-congratulatory statements of how fine looking the Premier was today. These are clearly from the heart.
So I wasn’t all that surprised a few weeks ago when Mr. Burke obviously got his property tax bill and went “Whoa, this is ridiculous.” (actually the quote was that property taxes “suck”. See NB Taxpayer for his take.)
But now that plain lingo blog is gone. Zapped from his blog. Why? I have no idea. I can speculate that someone strongly suggested Cabinet Ministers shouldn’t be writing that their property taxes “suck” to he was directed to remove it. For some reason known only to him, the blog is now gone but I’m doubtful if T.J. thinks property taxes suck any less. He was right the first time and that kind of frank talk from our politicians is long overdue. I’m sorry to see he felt the need to remove the blog.
Update - The missing blog in question for your perusal. Why couldn't whoever put the pressure on T.J. to remove the blog realize they were just shooting the messenger and actually deal with the issue instead of wasting time to have it removed? The issue remains whether a Cabinet Minister is told to shut up about it or not.
Crossposted - CanadaEast
posted by
Spinks at 4:54 PM -
link
...
... 
11 Comments
Interesting. I heard Terry Seguin mentioning it to him this morning?
I wonder what happen?
AS you said- Yes..He would jump in Minister's face at the Cabinet table.
There's no doubt about it!
I had my share of confrontation with T.J. and he doesn't back off.
It's a good way to agree to disagree.
But as I said- Interesting?
10:16 PM
You can't mentally rule like a fascist dictatorship and then try to face the public on the internets...
Where are the co-conspirators in stronger support of their front man?
Vote the PPPirates and corporofascist bandits out at the earliest possible opportunity.
Wrangle them up with yogic flyers, greens and other fiesty parties (NDP - knock, knock).
Tear the governments down in political muck just to stop them from causing more damage (NAU, Atlantica, Reel ID, bank fraud, drug wars, Afghanistan).
If the elections keep producing such losers and hangers on, the people deserve the pain these bandits are causing them.
10:29 PM
Yeah Charles, there would seem to be a direct correlation between the CBC interview and the removal of the blog. Hopefully it doesn't dissuade T.J. from his frank style of blogging.
Danf - ?
11:15 AM
Wow nice catch Spinks.
I sort of sympatize with TJ tho. Shouldn't he be allowed to delete something that is causing him grief for no real return?
Something that he no doubt spewed off the top of his head, instantly becomes A STATEMENT by the minister and comes back to bite him in the rear.
That's the danger with blogging I guess, especially non-anonymous blogging by a gov't official.
I'm frankly amazed that he's doing it at all. I think we have to forgive hm the odd wussy moment.
Think about it. Anything you say or write in a moment, becomes a permanent (thanks to Google caches especially) written statement that will never die.
Having said all that, TJ knew his blog posts would be highly scrutinized by gotcha journalists like Terry Seguin :).
12:35 PM
The same joker who says cell phones, talking while driving, is no more distractive than scratching yer ass.
The rest of what he said is non understandable also.Get rid of this guy.
12:44 PM
I don't blame him at all Gypsy and if I had a post causing me untold grief, I'd do the same thing because it's not worth the pain.
Still, I like T.J.'s frank style that doesn't have Liberal spin doctor written all over it and shows the guy as human. Someone within government or the Liberal Party obviously disagreed on this particular post. Too bad.
1:26 PM
If this kind of (alleged) muzzling and control is going on within cabinet by Graham's inner circle of thugs, just think what damage could be imposed on the common NB taxpayer by these individuals. Scary.
Btw, nice "get" spinks.
1:28 PM
It is interesting.
I found it refreshing that one of our elected masters, who are responsible for setting the high tax rate in the first place, would think that that it "sucks"
He must have been told to stick with the party line.
Which begs the question as to what is the party line?
I don't think it means that the rate will go down any time soon, after all, they are Liberals! and its more likely they are planning another increase, so he was told to be quiet. But I'm guessing.
Coincidentally, there was a 'letter to the editor' in the Gleaner today from David Murell, a professor of economics at UNB that said the tax rate has increased 7.8 percent every year since 2002- way above the rate of inflation... now that really does suck.
3:57 PM
Correction. Murell's letter was in Wednesday's Gleaner.
4:10 PM
What is more worrisome is his lack of posts at other blogs. Usually he posts at other blogs when issues come up about his. In this case, he's got to know that no matter what his next blog is-this is going to come up.
What it means is interesting to conjecture, but I doubt it means what Kit thinks it does-after all, party affiliation means nothing, the federal liberals cut taxes more than the conservatives ever did.
And he was talking about municipal taxes, and Fredericton is still the cheapest in the province, and compares fairly equitably across the country.
It does 'look bad' to be bashing another level of government when your own raised taxes across the board (regressively in many cases). Whether some city folks gave him grief or he just thought better of it we don't know. I'm not sure if its a Party thing, heck, the front page of the Telegraph had Mike Murphy outrightly blaming Sean Graham for the delay in a medical school, this doesn't even fit into that category. Maybe Brad Woodside gave him a talking to.
I dont know WHICH tax rate Murrell was talking about, but property taxes go with property value, which has to do with the market, not taxes. Does he mean housing prices increased by 7.8% or that the assessment rate did?
8:08 AM
What it means is interesting to conjecture, but I doubt it means what Kit thinks it does-after all, party affiliation means nothing, the federal liberals cut taxes more than the conservatives ever did.
In that case above, it's not as much about party affiliation or discipline as it is party ideology. And the federal liberal party has never been overly ideological, mikel. They saw an opening during the conservative civil war years of the 90s and took it. Had they been a party driven by ideology, they may have been punished significantly for cutting taxes and slashing social programs (as they never tout such things). It would almost be as bad as if the tories decided to stack the senate with appointments without consulting the public (about their reversal).
Just like when they campaigned against free trade and abolishing the GST in the 93 election (they were the party which introduced free trade) only to do nothing of the sort when the time came. Not exactly driven by ideology once in power. Though you could argue Mulroney did the same thing once in power regarding free trade. Again, more about the lack of ideology, then internal party discipline (just read Yukon Erik's book to see it first hand from a guy that lived it).
Anybody who was in Ottawa (or followed politics) during that period (you mentioned) knows Chretien held a tight grip when it came to his MP's voting patterns and keeping with the party line.
Just ask any liberal backbencher that sat near the velvet curtains during his reign. They'll tell you the same thing that defying a three-line whip was a very serious matter. And let me tell you, there were a lot of three-line whips.
I think the first time there was a free vote from that party was during the second vote on the same sex marriage (during Martin's short reign). A vote and issues, coincidently, that was three-line whipped when Chretien was in 24 Sussex.
I think it's safe to say the same thing came into play at the provincial level with TJ Burke's comments. There is always that worry in caucus that if you let one person stray off message, many will surely follow. Not exactly democratic, I know, but it seems to be the choice of most successful leaders in the Westminster system.
Which is why the system should be overhauled because it too often promotes heavy partisanship over true democratic representation. And I know you know about that mikel. :)
3:02 PM
Post a Comment
Home