NDP produces ads attacking Ignatieff for propping up Conservative government
January 29, 2009 - 7:29pm
OTTAWA — New Democrats have produced a series of scathing radio ads lambasting the Liberals for propping up Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jsvBway8JiRLDQG2xa2REc4Cq80A
Are Canadians currently too pre-occupied with their own economic circumstances and tuned out of politics altogether or will these ads resonate and be effective? Thoughts?
The New Democratic Opposition. I like that.
These ads will prove to be a waste of time. Save the money for the inevitable election in 2010.
And we are supposed to believe they would have worked together cooperatively in a coalition, in our best interests?
There are people who still listen to radio?
They won't be a waste of time if they successfully manage to frame Ignatieff in the public's eye. That's clearly what the NDP is doing here, trying to get ahead of the spin of this. It's a decent move. There are lots of Liberals who are basically anti-Conservatives. They won't be happy about what's happened, and these ads will help to encourage their discontent.
Yes, this is a significant betrayal of the unemployed and soon to be unemployed who Iggy said last week were his responsibility to protect and even something about jobs of the future (more Liberal Party rhetoric at this late date) before rubber-stamping Harper's budget. And people need to know about what is another Liberal Party betrayal right now not whenever the Liberals think theyre ready for another election.
People have gone back to sleep.
I don't believe the NDP has the resources or repetitive capacity to frame an image of Ignatieff. THe LPC are very busy framing that image and the CPC will likely get busy creating an Image of Iggy. The CPC have the money, time and resources to form an image of the Opposition Leader.
Liberals I speak with are very happy with Iggy and figure they can regain many seats from the NDP and take back seats lost to the CPC by grabbing NDP swing voters.
The NDP better have a war chest built, because when the LPC believe they can take on an Election Campaign, they will come back like its 1993.
Canada Election results 2008: Lowest support for a federal Liberal Party in an ice age
How low can the Liberals go? Keep pluggin' away, Jack!
I think the ads have already achieved their objective. They clearly distinguish the NDP position from the Liberal Party and frame Mr. Ignatieff as the wimpy heir to the spineless Liberal opposition tradition. They need not run very long.
I want to see some nuance - or at last some back channel messaging - in the message box around the budget. The fact is that the coalition was a) Jack's creation, and b) the only reason we got the government to back off from their grotesquely incompetent fiscal update and get any kind of stimulus going. This speaks to leadership, and gets lost in the straight-ahead budget bashing.
I also think that the Liberals have made a mistake with their amendment; unless they suddenly find themselves a spine they have now made displaying their support for the Harper government a regularly scheduled event. I have a hard time seeing that as smart.
The ads probably don't have to actually "run" at all. It will suffice to get free media from news reports about them and for them to circulate through the blogosphere. There are many examples of ads that were highly effective that parties never actually paid any money to run!
I like the ads becasue they show Jack and the team were prepared for the NDP Liberal coaliton to come to power but had Plan B ,if as expected the Liberals sold out. and he Liberal Consrvative coaltion solidifies . Until the next election all parties will hammer the Liberals, the Tories y putting them to the test to vote for his government on confidence vote after confedence vote, w hile the effective oppostion parties vote non confidence tiem after time. By the time the next election occurs the Liberals willl prrbably have close to 100 times in a rowy have voted confidence in the Harper governemnt.. So the ads are just the latest slavo in the ongoing struggle for leadership of the "left" that has been waged since the Martin minority.
The Liberal Party is in the "left"? I must have blinked...
From wikipedia:
Great Coalition
The Great Coalition refers to the grand coalition of political parties that formed in the Province of Canada in 1864. The previous collapse after only a few months of a coalition government formed by Étienne-Paschal Taché and Conservative John A. Macdonald (the sixth government in six years) had demonstrated that continued governance of Canada East and Canada West under the 1840 Act of Union had become untenable. In order to reform the political system, a coalition was formed between the Clear Grits under George Brown, the Parti bleu under George-Étienne Cartier, and the Liberal-Conservatives under John A. Macdonald. The formation of this coalition on 22 June 1864 under Étienne-Paschal Taché and John A. Macdonald as the Province of Canada led directly to Canadian Confederation in 1867, and the coalition persisted as the government of the Province of Canada until the moment of Confederation.
I like the ads. It looks like the NDP took a page from the Conservative attact ads regarding Dion. "Stephane Dion - not a leader" worked wonders to undermine Dion and, hopefully, these ads will undermine Ignatieff.
Great move by the NDP!!
I'm not sure if this is the greatest move. The problem is the average Canadian is tuned out from what occurred in the budget process and the NDP is trying to set up a new paradigm where the public comes to dismiss the Liberals as much as the core NDP voter. In an environment where the public either dismisses everything the Liberals say (lack of credibility) or somewhat pities them in their abject weakness, the Liberal party is in deep trouble.
So far, all the justifications that the party is going to re-tool, re-build, re-vise, re-energise ring hollow when the Liberals failed to do the very thing they are supposedly re-building to do: seize power. For a party whose whole raison d'être is seizing power and "winning", they've blown it. I all I can hear whistling in the trees these days is Prime Minister Harper, Prime Minister Harper, Prime Minister Harper, etc.
ETA: I like the "Change" ad the best.
Funny, that's exactly why Warren Kinsella doesn't like them.
Yeah I don't love the ads, maybe its the tone but I think the meme of a Tory-Liberal coalition budget is worth reinforcing.
I think that Layton and his caucus (by critic position) should be ready to issue statements every time there is news of job losses and layoffs and bankruptcies. Keep driving home the fact that two incompetent politicians (Harper and Ignatieff) put their own political ambitions ahead of the economic needs of this country.
I hadn't heard these ads until I caught a discussion about them on "The John Downs Show" on am640.com while waiting for the Leafs' broadcast to start. (Why, oh why, must this gang of troglodytes be the "Home of the Leafs"?)
The show's host slammed the ads, the NDP, Jack Layton, as well as the female announcer on the ads, saying she sounded like a date from hell. Then he opened the phone lines...
Granted, the general audience of a Corus radio station would have been big fans of Mussolini, but without exception the people who phoned in said that Jack Layton was despicable, a back-stabber, gutless, off-the-mark, delusional, playing politics when the country needs stability, and variations of a guy with a pornstar moustache.
I don't know if this is the kind of free publicity Stockholm has in mind.
Two points:
1. Its common knowledge that people who listen to and call "talk radio" tend to be almost uniformly old white men who are rightwing fanatics wearing tinfoil hats.For reasons that are not well understood - it is a medium that sees to attract the lunatic fringe right.
2. I really don't care what people say they think of the ads or what they think of Layton. What matters is that the underlying message inh the ads sink in. Back when the Tories ran their scurrilous ads making personal attacks on Stephane Dion two years ago - EVERYONE went on and on ad nauseum about how mean the Tories were to "go negative" and how shocked and appalled they were that Harper would do this etc... an then 10 minutes later, the same people would be parroting the central message of the ads which was that Dion was a weak leader etc...
[I hadn't heard these ads until I caught a discussion about them on "The John Downs Show" on am640.com while waiting for the Leafs' broadcast to start. (Why, oh why, must this gang of troglodytes be the "Home of the Leafs"?)
The show's host slammed the ads, the NDP, Jack Layton, as well as the female announcer on the ads, saying she sounded like a date from hell. Then he opened the phone lines...
Granted, the general audience of a Corus radio station would have been big fans of Mussolini, but without exception the people who phoned in said that Jack Layton was despicable, a back-stabber, gutless, off-the-mark, delusional, playing politics when the country needs stability, and variations of a guy with a pornstar moustache.
I don't know if this is the kind of free publicity Stockholm has in mind.
I don't know either, but it is great news. The fact that a Leafs show on redneck radio is talking about the ads means they have generated buzz. I can't imagine that any of the people you heard came to their opinions because of the ads. They have always been mouthbreathers. I mean, they're Leafs fans for crying out loud. How smart could they be?
The release has been targeted in ridings where the demographics and polling suggest that the hit will take, so the yammer on John Downs is no kind of bad. If the idiots are frothing, cheer them on. Tell them how much Jack loves the Habs.
I think it's great. Good for Layton. He gave Liberals the benefit of the doubt and Ignasty climbed into bed with the Conjobs. Clearly Ignasty's interests are not the interests of Canadians but his own opportunistic political hide. This sort of thing could get me voting NDP again.
Ok, my favourite quote of the budget yap is this bit from a disillusioned Conservative in the Globe and Mail:
"Gerry Nicholls, a former colleague of Mr. Harper's at the right-wing National Citizens' Coalition, said he thinks the Prime Minister has lost his way.
“The Conservative party is conservative in name only. It makes me yearn for the days when we had a relatively fiscally conservative leader like Jean Chrétien,” Mr. Nicholls said, referring to the former Liberal prime minister's victory in slaying the deficit in the mid-1990s and paying down federal debt."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.wtories30/CommentStory/politics/home
You have your "facts" mixed up. This wasn't a Leafs show, but Leafs shows are scattered throughout this station's schedule, which means after I listen to "Leafs Lunch" I'm exposed to the horrible Mike Stafford (which I usually shut off right away) until the Bill Waters hockey show starts.
There's some really crazy stuff after "Leafs Talk," the show that follows game broadcasts.
At least I haven't heard "Adler On Line" in a while. Maybe the transmitter in his cave broke down.
If you've heard who hosts these programmes, you would have no trouble understanding the audience they attract.
Oops, wrong thread. Mea culpa.
I have actually met Gerry Nicholls. I find his politics abhorrent, but he is very principled and very pleasant in person. He's willing to criticize the Conservative Party when he thinks they are abandoning conservative principles. He got dumped as head of the National Citizens Coalition because he refused to just be a cheerleader for Harper. I have a lot of time for him.
The show's host slammed the ads, the NDP, Jack Layton, as well as the female announcer on the ads, saying she sounded like a date from hell. Then he opened the phone lines...
Granted, the general audience of a Corus radio station would have been big fans of Mussolini, but without exception the people who phoned in said that Jack Layton was despicable, a back-stabber, gutless, off-the-mark, delusional, playing politics when the country needs stability, and variations of a guy with a pornstar moustache.
These are just Harper supporters calling in to protect the junior member of the coalition (the Libs). The same people who torched Nathan Cullen's sign on cue.
You have your "facts" mixed up. This wasn't a Leafs show, but Leafs shows are scattered throughout this station's schedule, which means after I listen to "Leafs Lunch" I'm exposed to the horrible Mike Stafford (which I usually shut off right away) until the Bill Waters hockey show starts.
I can imagine it's hard. If it's getting you down, I've got a couple of old Habs jersies around here somewhere I can send your way. Much nicer ambience goes with them.
Anyway, Leaf's show or not, the ads are being talked about in nooks and crannies where NDP buzz doesn't usually go. Nobody should care what the John Downs' of the world think (or whatever it is they do where most people think) but the fact that he feels the need to discuss it is interesting.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. People and the media are perceiving it as Layton being thin skinned.
Of course the party faithful love it because they are the party faithful and they will vote for the NDP no matter what. The problem is the other 85% of Canadians who don't.
With Premiers across the country saying that they have reservations about the budget BUT are very thankful for the spending, the NDP look like idiots.
Is it 4:20 yet?
Absolutely!
And the NDP -and every Canadian citizen with 2 oz of grey matter- need to be hounding the Libs and the Cons and the media at every turn about the fact that the poor and the vast majority of the unemployed have no place in the "recovery" plan or the budget.
The whole society will become increasingly dysfunctional, with rising crime and domestic abuse and happy-go-lucky cops-on-the-loose having a field day every day tasering and shooting and beating, with street people and shut-ins freezing or starving to death or getting murdered and... why go on? We all know what this level of willful neglect leads to and it's criminal to accept the state of denial that Crown Prince Igor and King Cobra are forcing on us.
The right will say what they have to say about Layton or anyone on the left. Layton was showing a perfectly normal reaction of disappointment, anger, and sadness. At least he is capable of showing human emotion --as, by the way, is Duceppe, who also managed some pretty funny digs at Iggy--, unlike the other two rigid masks now sharing power.
The right will say what they have to say about Layton or anyone on the left. Layton was showing a perfectly normal reaction of disappointment, anger, and sadness. At least he is capable of showing human emotion --as, by the way, is Duceppe, who also managed some pretty funny digs at Iggy--, unlike the other two rigid masks now sharing power.
Layton's emotions are that of someone going through a breakup and blogging about it on Facebook. Seriously are we going to go through the seven stages until Jack gets to acceptance.
Move on already.
Is it 4:20 yet?
And the NDP -and every Canadian citizen with 2 oz of grey matter- need to be hounding the Libs and the Cons and the media at every turn about the fact that the poor and the vast majority of the unemployed have no place in the "recovery" plan or the budget.
This was, strangely enough, one of the criticisms that the Corus radio host made of Jack Layton; that instead of speaking up for "poor people," Layton instead indulged in an attack ad aimed at Ignatieff. Mind you, the host's criticisms were mired in cheap shots of his own, especially his repeated playing of the ad interspersed with his misogynist comments about the voice of the woman who read the ad.
If the ads and their quick, effective roll out say anything about Jack's state of mind it is that he read Mr. Ignatieff's intentions many days ago and wasted no time moping.
The Globe story on the ads has over 800 comments at the moment. The rage from the Conservatives is really quite beautiful, in a primal, carnivorous sort of way. Regardless, people are talking - a lot.
These ads are apparently golden.
People wailed about the Conservative ads attacking Dion. They were deplorable, gutter politics.
They worked.
The NDP doesn't have the same bully pulpit as the Cons do, and they don't have the friendly media voices willing to parrot their talking points. But if people are talking about NDP ads outside of an election cycle, that's net positive for the NDP.
The very fact that the ads have already prompted Liberal trolls to join babble suggests they are already being effective. GO JACK!
Good Lord the NDP is taking media strategy from Paris Hilton. Hate to break it to everybody here but there IS such a thing called bad press.
Oh yes people are talking about the NDP all right. Words such as whiney, petulant and immature are brought up with regularity. But hey as long as they get your name right in the papers.
What's that I hear? Oh that's Warren Kinsella laughing his ass off.
Is it 4:20 yet?
I think it was Warren Kinsella who told them to drop the carbon tax and all that doublespeak about "green" capitalism. Liberals shoulda listened to him
Warren Kinsella. Do we allow that kind of foul language here?
Anyway, I'm sure the folks over at the NDP office appreciate your concern. No doubt they'll take note.
In your compendious experience of the word on the street, has anybody mentioned the word troll?
Kudos to Layton and the NDP for their rapid fire attack on the severely weakened Liberals as it's obvious the Liberals have been caught off guard by this brilliant ad strategy. And it's just a matter of time before the big buck Cons do the same, and look what they did to Dion. Liberals are going nowhere fast, at least until Justin takes over the reigns, but that's in the future.
Warren Kinsella. Do we allow that kind of foul language here?
Anyway, I'm sure the folks over at the NDP office appreciate your concern. No doubt they'll take note.
In your compendious experience of the word on the street, has anybody mentioned the word troll?
Pick up a paper or read them online here is a sample.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/29/don-martin-jack-layton-misses-the-last-bus-to-cabinetville.aspx
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/578810
I don't live under a bridge and I like to sun tan so no Troll I. I am a long time lurker and have been away from the internet for a little while. (The tag should give you a clue)
Having made a few whopper mistakes in my life, trust me, I can see one from a mile away. These attack adds are a super whopper.
1. It backs the NDP into a corner with regards to the Liberal party. You know the same party the NDP were willing to enter into a coalition less than 48hrs ago
2. Going negative pre writ only makes one look cranky and desperate, just look at the Tory negative coalition adds
3. my biggest criticism of the add is that it defines the NDP as an opposition party rather than a governing party in waiting.
These adds were written to preach to the choir rather than convert the infidel heathens. Waste of money and the negatives are huge. Got it Peter and Frustrated Lemming?
Is it 4:20 yet?
Sorry, Liberals. You elected (oops, not even that!) a dud as leader again. Too bad, so sad.
1. The Liberals have made their decision; they chose the terrain.
2. Going negative "pre-writ" has worked on numerous ocassions before - see Harper's ads re: Dion. And for that matter, the Tories ads against the coalition which did sow confusion in the general public and captured the issue for a lot of people.
3. Um, the point is that the NDP is the opposition; it was waiting to form government in a coalition with the Liberals which the Liberals abandoned in order to join a coalition with the Conservatives, remember?
As to "preaching to the converted": it is obviously targeted at Canadians who supported the coalition and who should be greatly disappointed that their trust in the Liberal Party has once again been abused.
What the ads do are push Iggy back into the same corner Dion was cowering in before Jack helped him realize he does have a spine. Gut check time for Iggy.
1. It backs the NDP into a corner with regards to the Liberal party. You know the same party the NDP were willing to enter into a coalition less than 48hrs ago
2. Going negative pre writ only makes one look cranky and desperate, just look at the Tory negative coalition adds
3. it defines the NDP as an opposition party rather than a governing party in waiting.
These adds were written to preach to the choir rather than convert the infidel heathens. Waste of money and the negatives are huge.
1. The NDP did not back themsleves into anything (or walk in frontwards). The Liberals walked away from the coalition, and it has been no secret that they were headed that way for quite a while. From the NDP perspective, it was good to work for the success of the coalition, but it would have been foolish not to prepare for its failure. It would have been flat out stupid to carry on as if we were still all singing from the same song sheet.
2. This is hardly a normal pre-writ period, and even if it were, staking out the NDP's turf would be no bad thing. Waiting for the Liberals to seize the initiative in speaking to disappointed coalition supporters would have been lethal. And you seem to have missed the point that the Conservative anti-coalition ads worked just fine, in spite of being flagrantly dishonest and absurdly over the top.
3. The NDP is an opposition party, at the moment. It is attempting (with some success) to present itself as the real opposition, distinguishing themselves from the pseudo-opposition of the Liberals. Since the Official Opposition is by Constitutional convention the government in waiting, it all adds up, one small step at a time.
In some sense you are correct about preaching to the choir; the ads are aimed at those who backed a coalition and are unhappy with how things landed. There are no real negatives in it from that perspective, unless you buy Kinsella's (excuse my profanity) lame (and profoundly hypocritical) charge that it looks sneaky. I'm sure he would have prefered that the NDP just shrugged and looked into the cameras slack-jawed as Mr. Ignatieff killed the coalition. Why on earth would Jack oblige him, and what ethical rule required him to believe the transparent fiction that the Liberals were planning to implement the coalition agreement?
I read the papers, thanks. I've read the outraged commentary from the usual suspects. This means nothing at all about the advisability of the strategy. It's a targeted message, and it will do what it's meant to just fine.
Jack is targeting all those borderline Liberal Party supporters who didnt vote Liberal last year and who may have been thinking there is a ray of sunshine between the Liberals and Tories due to Dion's coalition with 62 percent majority.
Jack is just reminding Canadians that Ignasty has blackened that window of opportunity for the LPC, and that the NDP is still the democratic opposition.
Um, I don't get this "preaching to the choir" angle at all. The ads are clearly aimed at disenchanted Liberals. Are these people actually the NDP "choir"? Funny they don't vote for us then.
All the polls said the same thing, in various degrees. The majority of Liberal voters wanted the coalition. Oddly enough, they wanted the leader of the party they support to take the chance to lead the country (what a crazy world). Iggy handed that power back to the Cons without a fight, just because taking power meant sharing it with the NDP. Hey, maybe they were even right. Maybe this is the best tactic for them in the long-term, but the fact remains that the majority of their voters didn't care about hooking up with the NDP, they just wanted the Conservatives gone. These are disappointed Liberals. There's no way around it.
So, given the state of affairs the NDP could shrug its shoulders and go "what're ya gonna do" (as the BC NDP so often does rather than putting up any kind of fight), or it could do something to drive a wedge between those voters and their party. These ads are an attempt to do that, to reinforce that feeling of betrayal that many Liberal voters are experiencing right now.
I find it especially hilarious that people are dissing these ads because the media is shitting on them. Can you really not be aware that the media is going to shit on anything and everything the NDP does from now until the second coming of christ? If the NDP operated by this standard it would never make any move whatsoever (again, much like the BC party). Frankly, if the media didn't shit on these ads, then I would be inclined to oppose them, because they obviously aren't pissing off the right people.
In one of his rarer moments of honesty a few years ago, Warren Kinsella admitted on his blog that one of the biggest risks the Liberal Party faced was a resurgent NDP.
I assume that, following his advice, the Liberals rated that as a bigger risk in their quest to obtain a sole majority mandate than leaving Stephen Harper in office to attack them.
Again, I hope we go hard after both the Liberals and Conservatives on the weaknesses in EI, particularly after that disgusting interview Diane Finley gave to Norma Greenaway at Canwest, where she said the Conservatives did not want to "make it lucrative for the unemployed to stay home".
If the Liberals' amendment does not pass, which it appears unlikely to at this stage, then the Liberals will have to go thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the budget. We should be doing everything we can to make that as costly as possible for them, given how much the resulting budget is going to hurt the weakest members of our society.
Give 'em hell, Jack.
I'm wrong about the Liberal amendment ... the Conservatives have said they'll be supporting it. I still stand by my original strategic comment, however ... as the Liberal amendment does not change the budget in any meaningful way.
This is a bad budget no doubt, but it is a Tory budget that everybody hates including Tories. That is a good thing because they alone own this mess. If the Liberals or the NDP had proposed amendments they would have had ownership of this monstrosity.
Notice how the NDP is not proposing any amendments of their own but criticise the Liberals for not proposing their own. A bit weak.
The Liberals are right in that Canadians aversion to this budget is high but their aversion to an election is even higher. There is no guarantee that the GG will approve the coalition and my sentiment is that she would call an election as the throne speech had passed with the confidence of the house.
I like the idea of coalitions but this one was a bad one. Namely that the Liberals and NDP would still have had a fewer seats than the Tories. They would have had to depend on a third party who was NOT a part of the coalition. That is the definition of unstable.
Either you believe in coalitions or you don't. Having pushed the new idea of one on the Canadian public only to behave like a jilted lover when it failed to materialise only plays into the Conservative mantra that coalitions are unstable.
Optics matter.
Is it 4:20 yet?
The NDP voted in favour of the Bloc's ammendments. The Bay Street coalition voted it down, because it would have taken deep fried pork rinds out of the mouths of fat-cats.
The NDP voted in favour of the Bloc's ammendments. The Bay Street coalition voted it down, because it would have taken deep fried pork rinds out of the mouths of fat-cats.
Exactly the NDP is voting for OTHER peoples amendments. Also it is easy to vote for something that you know is not going to pass but not trigger an election.
Is it 4:20 yet?
Jason, it's a Liberal budget too. It's a Tory/Liberal coalition budget.
Gerry Nichols comes out on cue, as he has a dozen times before, to say that "Stephen Harper is a moderate, more liberal than the Liberals", creating the perfect sound-bite for the corporate media to 'balance' against prevailing criticism - And you applaud his act as "principled"?
I really need to talk to you about some land I have for sale in Florida....
What result can attack ads by the NDP targetted at the Liberals possibly produce:
1) more NDP seats;
2) another Conservative government.
Wouldn't the NDP rather work with a Liberal government? Or wouldn't an NDP government rather work with Liberal support?
Of course they would, tostig. That's what they said they wanted - to work with the Liberals in a coalition government. But the Liberals chose to form a coalition government with the Conservatives instead of the NDP. So what, the NDP is supposed to shut up and hope the Liberals like them better if they bat their eyelashes at them?
Please stop with the talking points. There is no Tory/Liberal coalition and to bandy the word about is disingenuous and only confuses the issue.
Is it 4:20 yet?
Talking points? Me? Heh. If you weren't a total newbie, you'd know that I'm certainly no NDP shill. Just ask the others around here.
In this case, though, I think the NDP is right.
I know it hurts to know your party is now in a coalition with the Tories because neither party has principles. Sometimes it's good to know the truth, no matter how painful. I'm sorry for your loss.
"I like the idea of coalitions but this one was a bad one. Namely that the Liberals and NDP would still have had a fewer seats than the Tories. They would have had to depend on a third party who was NOT a part of the coalition. That is the definition of unstable."
On the contrary:
Signed agreement by three parties with a majority of seats pledging no election for at least two years = STABILITY
Minority government with no agreements with any other party and a sword of Damocles hanging over every single vote and the possibility of an election at ANY time (ie: what we have now) = INSTABILITY.
Okay everybody let's put down the crazy pills and look at reality. THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE GG WOULD APROVE THE COALITION. So stop this BS that there was coalition government in the wings.
I can't understand the people on this board who would gleefully have a Tory majority if it meant taking a few more seats from the Liberals. Pyrrhic victory indeed.
The play to have a stable centre/left government in Canada would be to go into an election and run a joint Liberal/NDP coalition campaign. Like the CDU and CSU or the Alliance 90 and the Greens do in Germany.
Is it 4:20 yet?
No kidding. Speaking of "talking points", huh? :D
Please stop with the talking points. There is no Tory/Liberal coalition and to bandy the word about is disingenuous and only confuses the issue.
Michael Ignastieff is Steve Harper!! They're all the same guy just a few different rich friends to cater to is all.
The only other option would be strategically running candidates in the next election. But the question would now be who's going to make the first move with this proposal?
The Liberals will rue the day they formed a coalition with the Cons. At the appropriate time Ignatieff will be kneecapped politically speaking by Harper.
Most of the people here wanted a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals, not a Tory majority. It was your party who decided to get together with the Tories instead of the NDP. It was your party who decided it was much better to pass a Tory/Liberal budget and support the instability of a Tory minority government on paper (but a Tory/Liberal coalition in practice) than to have a stable coalition government for at least two years with the NDP.
And just so you know, we don't call each other "crazy" here as a term of abuse. I know that probably sounds too PC for your liking, but it's a standard we set here, and I'd appreciate it if you'd follow it. As a newbie you wouldn't know, so as a helpful moderator, I'm just giving you a heads up. :)
This is a bad budget no doubt, but it is a Tory budget that everybody hates including Tories. That is a good thing because they alone own this mess. If the Liberals or the NDP had proposed amendments they would have had ownership of this monstrosity.
Not to engage our Liberal troll jasonJ2, but this is another part of the Liberal strategic spin that will come back to haunt them down the road, I believe. The idea that they think they are clever for not "owning" the budget during the recession, instead of demonstrating the courage of their convictions to actually do something to help people out, will ultimately leave them weakened. Although they're getting some short-term applause for this from the usual suspects, long-term Ignatieff has conceded a lot of moral high ground by not demonstrating the necessary leadership or courage to take on a tough job in difficult times, but just walking away instead.
Notice how the NDP is not proposing any amendments of their own but criticise the Liberals for not proposing their own. A bit weak.
Here jasonJ2 demonstrates how little he knows about the Parliamentary process, since as the 4th party in Parliament (3rd in popular support, but that's FPTP for you), the NDP is not able to present an amendment in the House on the main budget motion unless the Liberals or Bloc decline to.
He should probably prepare his Liberal colleagues, however, for a whole ream of NDP amendments to the Budget Implementation Bill, each one of which will be pretty painful for the Liberals to oppose as they continue to prop up Stephen Harper. I see the makings of a pretty good ad campaign around those votes, to be sure.
The Liberals are right in that Canadians aversion to this budget is high but their aversion to an election is even higher. There is no guarantee that the GG will approve the coalition and my sentiment is that she would call an election as the throne speech had passed with the confidence of the house.
As I suspected, they are terrified of an election right now. Which is another reason I'm glad we're embarking on a permanent campaign they can't seem to match right now (and, surprisingly, weren't prepared for).
Is it 4:20 yet?
What the heck does that mean, anyway?
Talking points? Me? Heh. If you weren't a total newbie, you'd know that I'm certainly no NDP shill. Just ask the others around here.
In this case, though, I think the NDP is right.
I know it hurts to know your party is now in a coalition with the Tories because neither party has principles. Sometimes it's good to know the truth, no matter how painful. I'm sorry for your loss.
I have no party and for you to imply that I'm a Liberal shill is a reach. Frankly I don't trust any of them as politicians by definition will say whatever is needed to clime the slippery pole.
Having been a former guest of Her Majesty because I liked to grow little green plants has given me a lot of time to contemplate and reflect on the hypocrisy of life in general.
I have toked up with councillors to cabinet ministers and with activists to captains of industry. But when I went inside nobody wanted to hear from me but when I got out they would call me but made sure I came in through the servants entrance. I was and am everybody's best friend till I'm not. It's unfair but who said life was fair.
Michelle a coalition government is a formal agreement between parties. There is no agreement between the Tories and the Liberals so therefore there is no coalition. Being disingenuous because it suits you makes you a hypocrite of the first order and that's fine because that's life. Don't delude yourself into thinking you're not.
Is it 4:20 yet?
Perhaps a better phraseology to describe Liberal/Con arrangements, or NDP/Iggy dalliances, is to refer to it as taking temporary leave of ones senses. Except well, for the liberals, as it isn't really temporary.
By the way I love how it's gang up on the new guy who doesn't agree with us. Oh and what 4:20 means, just google it.
Is it 4:20 yet?
Two Liberal trolls in two days? Is this how Kinsella uses his time in the Liberal war room? I hope he is volunteering. Do the aliases have numbers so they can be tracked on a spreadsheet?
Ottawa dude,
Courage of conviction! Don't make me laugh! Politicians have two emotions, fear and greed. Harper had the conviction of fixed election dates and an elected senate until he didn't. Ignatieff had the conviction of sayin Israel had committed war crimes until he didn't. Layton was for the legalisation of pot until he turfed candidates because they smoked pot.
Puhleaze!!! I've got my wake and bake on and I won't fall for that canard.
Is it 4:20 yet?
"The play to have a stable centre/left government in Canada would be to go into an election and run a joint Liberal/NDP coalition campaign. Like the CDU and CSU or the Alliance 90 and the Greens do in Germany."
Right now Germany is in year three of a grand coalition between the CDU and the SPD. Perhaps i'm losing my memory, but I have no recollection of Angela Merkel and Gerhardt Schroeder running in the last German election on a joint campaign pledging to form a coalition government after the election.
Perhaps a better phraseology to describe Liberal/Con arrangements, or NDP/Iggy dalliances, is to refer to it as taking temporary leave of ones senses. Except well, for the liberals, as it isn't really temporary.
Much better. How about the Harper/Iggy Pas de Deux. Or the budget mambo... whatever you get the point
Is it 4:20 yet?
"Layton was for the legalisation of pot"
and he still is!
Stockholm,
CDU and the CSU. Where the heck did you get the SPD?? And I thought I was buzzed
My final suggestion. "Iggy and the Stooges" seriously I can't believe nobody has come up with that one yet
Is it 4:20 yet?
Is it 4:20 yet?
Answer
Explains a lot, actually.
"Layton was for the legalisation of pot"
and he still is!
He was also for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan until he wasn't and then was again. He's for labour rights but was willing to support back to work legislation for Ottawa transit workers
What ever. Politicians are all the same. They will say whatever and do whatever is needed to advance their career. That is their job.
Is it 4:20 yet?"CDU and the CSU. Where the heck did you get the SPD?? And I thought I was buzzed"
You obviously know absolutely NOTHING about German politics. have you actually read a single story about German political news in the past few years??? If you did you would know that there is a coalition government right now of the two big parties. Merkel of the CDU is Chancellor, but the SPD has a majority of the seats in cabinet. The CDU and SPD are arch-rivals and campaigned fiercely against each other in the election - but now they are in a coalition gov't together. The CSU is just the "nom de plume" of the CDU in the state of Bavaria it isn't a real party at all.
If you could get our facts about German politics so totally wrong, it calls into question everything else you have to say here.
BTW: Obama won the US election, not McCain - just in case you thought it was the other way around.
Poor Canada.
Hey all, just a reminder that people who support the Liberal party ARE allowed to post here. They're even allowed to disagree with us.
We, on the other hand, have a policy that forbids personal attacks, and that includes calling people "Liberal trolls". So I would appreciate it if everyone who is calling him names would stop doing that from here on out.
Jason, I assume you're a Liberal Party supporter because it's pretty clear who you're defending in this thread. That doesn't make you a troll, however.
By the way, have I mentioned that I hate taglines? Lord but I hate taglines and I can't wait until the tech guys finally get around to turning them off.
Is it 4:20 yet?
Answer
Explains a lot, actually.
Totally.
And, sorry Michelle.
"CDU and the CSU. Where the heck did you get the SPD?? And I thought I was buzzed"
You obviously know absolutely NOTHING about German politics. have you actually read a single story about German political news in the past few years??? If you did you would know that there is a coalition government right now of the two big parties. Merkel of the CDU is Chancellor, but the SPD has a majority of the seats in cabinet. The CDU and SPD are arch-rivals and campaigned fiercely against each other in the election - but now they are in a coalition gov't together. The CSU is just the "nom de plume" of the CDU in the state of Bavaria it isn't a real party at all.
If you could get our facts about German politics so totally wrong, it calls into question everything else you have to say here.
BTW: Obama won the US election, not McCain - just in case you thought it was the other way around.
Wow what a condescending post.
Okay let me point out the ways you are wrong. The CSU is an independent party that only operates in Bavaria and can trace its roots back to the Weimar republic. It is more socially conservative than the CDU and has governed Bavaria since 1949 sometimes in partnership with the FDP. In federal elections they throw their support behind the CDU in the Bundestag as they are a regional party just like the Bloc is. That does not stop them from running a candidate for chancellor which they do.
It's not a nom de plume for the CDU as it has it's own structure and constitution. But then again with so many people on this board claiming that the Liberals and Tories are the same party your confusion is only natural.
Is it 4:20 yet?
Poor, poor Canada.
You are being misleading formalistic.
Yes, the CSU is a seperate party with its own structure it jealously guards. but that doesn't make it substantively difference. Its small formalistic differences are anachronisms.
But it is also in practice the CDU in Bavaria. And the CSU is NOTHING like the Bloc.
Nor does the fact it has governed with the FDP in Bavaria mean a thing. The CDU or the SPD have governed states with the FDP the Greens, whoever.
"It's not a nom de plume for the CDU as it has it's own structure and constitution."
Its not quite that simple. The CDU doesn't run in Bavaria and the CSU is f0or all intents and purposes the vestigial name of the CDU in Bavaria, but on several occasions the leader of CSU has also been the CDU candidate for chancellor (ie: Franz Josef Strauss and Dietrich Stoiber come to mind). They are considered to be one party in Germany (the CDU/CSU) and their seats are always added up together and there has never been the slightest possibility of - say - the CSU staying out of a CDU led government.
Meanwhile, there is a coalition gov't right now in Germany between two parties that are usually arch-enemies - and no one seems to have any problem with that.
It's 4:30 in St John's, and youre late
Answer
Explains a lot, actually.
And, sorry Michelle.
It doesn't explain anything actualy, but it goes to show your willingness to dismiss someone because of their lifestyle rather than their opinions.
"Is it 4:20 yet" is the only thing jasonJ2 has said yet that I can respect.
It's only 4:00 in the Maritimes. But why put off until later what can be done anytime.
"If you could get our facts about German politics so totally wrong, it calls into question everything else you have to say here"
Who appointed you God?
Are your talking points that weak that you have to resort to such silliness?
Let's all stick to the issues.
The "issue" is that contrary to what SOME people seem to think - there is no hard and fast rule that parties have to campaign as partners in an election campaign to be able to form a coalition post-election. More often than not in Europe parties run vicious negative campaigns against each other - and then end up sitting around the same cabinet table. That's how it goes.
Thank you for bringing us around to the point of that digression. :)
Layton's right hand, Karl Bélanger, has said the NDP is planning to launch a French version of the radio ads and will go to TV if the donations roll in. Fight back!
JasonJ2
I can accept that you are not acting as a Liberal troll here, but the "gang up on the newbie" stuff is a little hard to swallow. You showed up with a chip on your shoulder and began your conversation here with the implication (well, it was more than an implication, but we're being conciliatory here) that those you disagree with are stupid.
So here's an offer: I'll stay off your case if you stay off mine. You want to talk? Cool. If you want to tell everybody here how stupid they are, expect some blowback.
It's 4:20. Chill.
I hate to be on topic (which is rare enough for me anyway)- but I like the ads. I was willing to stomach quite a bit for the larger goal of removing Harper at a time when we need an activist government. However the Liberals have just proven to me tha the friend of my enemy is my enemy. And Harper is most definetly the enemy of progressive Canadians who want to see their neighbours keep their homes and the vulnerable be helped and our economy positioned to create good paying jobs in the economy of tomorrow. By setting back such progress the Liberals should be the enemy of progressive Canadians. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.
Now for off-topic. Does anyone think this will finally be the end of the 'reckless Ontario NDP government' crap as the sainted Conservatives and Liberals have now joined together to try and emulate the stimulus of the NDP bugets that paved the way for the recovery Harris took credit for?
I hate to be on topic (which is rare enough for me anyway)- but I like the ads. I was willing to stomach quite a bit for the larger goal of removing Harper at a time when we need an activist government. However the Liberals have just proven to me tha the friend of my enemy is my enemy. And Harper is most definetly the enemy of progressive Canadians who want to see their neighbours keep their homes and the vulnerable be helped and our economy positioned to create good paying jobs in the economy of tomorrow. By setting back such progress the Liberals should be the enemy of progressive Canadians. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.
Now for off-topic. Does anyone think this will finally be the end of the 'reckless Ontario NDP government' crap as the sainted Conservatives and Liberals have now joined together to try and emulate the stimulus of the NDP bugets that paved the way for the recovery Harris took credit for?
And as rare as it is that I agree with you, today I do. Great ad. But I do think a coalition was do-able and provided the Liberals with an opportunity to good not to miss. I mean, I'm sorry, but Ignasty blew this big time. And I'm quite pleased, actually. Because he really is a nasty piece of work and I think the NDP would have a hard time getting out of that bed without carrying something that stinks with them.
As for your question, no. The ConLibs can be forgiven no matter the scope and reprehensibility of the crime. The NDP must be perfect. You'd almost think the party was a woman in a man's world of politics.
Does anyone think this will finally be the end of the 'reckless Ontario NDP government' crap as the sainted Conservatives and Liberals have now joined together to try and emulate the stimulus of the NDP bugets that paved the way for the recovery Harris took credit for?
Interesting question indeed. One quibble though - Rae (or perhaps Floyd Laughren deserves the credit) didn't build structural deficit into the equation back in '91. The fiscally-responsible Ontario NDP raised progressive income tax rates on high income earners to pay for tax reductions for the 70,000 lowest income earners.
As for your question, no. The ConLibs can be forgiven no matter the scope and reprehensibility of the crime. The NDP must be perfect. You'd almost think the party was a woman in a man's world of politics.
True enough LTJ
Hey FM. Hope life is treating you well. I think you would find I agree with you more than you think.
I too came to think that a coalition- given the possibilites- was worth the risk and I think it will be seen in retrospect as a huge miscalculation on behalf of Ignatieff and the Liberals.
When partisans like me were willing to set aside some strong beliefs in a spirit of compromise the Liberals missed an opportunity to re-create the aura around them that Pearson and Trudeau did. Big, big mistake in the long term positioning of the Liberal party to my mind.
The partisan side of me says HA HA. But the bigger side despairs for our Canada over the next while. I know what it is like to be on unemployment in bad times, and those times were a lot more helpful in terms of benefits than today. I also know what it feels like to be a kid when jobs disapear and money is very, very tight and it sucks. To think that my fellow citizens have been tossed aside in favour of billions for banks with no strings attached makes me revolted that good Liberals got behind Ignateiff. And that is just one issue in too many.
I do agree with you on the sentiments expressed. But as Sean in Ottawa and Stockholm, perhaps, might tell you, the majority of Canadians supported their being tossed aside in favour of billions with no strings attached for, and let's remind ourselves, profitable banks.
I'm not one of those Canadians. But despite the evidence (despite that just months ago when the whole world watched the financial underpinnings of our global economy collapse Stephen Harper, a trained economist, said we wouldn't have a recession) most Canadians still tell polls they trust the Conjobs to best manage the economy.
It is because of things like that I'm so cynical. I mean, I don't want to be. But I'm forced ...
My wife says people give more thought to the colour of their underwear than they do to the effects of their political choices. It is deeply cyncial for such a postive person, but I expect she is right. Me- I'm too stupid to give in.
I like these ads, but more because they exist at all than because they are particularly well put together. They didn't really need to be anything special to have the desired effect.
It has been fun reading the outrage from the usual suspects over the last few days. The same geniuses who were sneering at the NDP for not getting that the coalition was dead are now moaning about how sneaky Jack was preparing for the Liberals' defection.
Anyway, if it's taken as given that these are an attempt to snatch disappointed coalition supporters from the Liberals, they're more than good enough. If they are really thinking of escalating the air war, I hope the next cycle of ads contains some more nuanced messaging. The Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss smack-upside-the-head shtick is fine as far as it goes, but it needs a harmony line.
It would also be great to see some of the pantheon trotted out to speak to the Canadian political mess. An ad featuring Stephen Lewis would be hot stuff. Ed could do some good. A retired prairie premier or two might work.
It would also be great to see some of the pantheon trotted out to speak to the Canadian political mess. An ad featuring Stephen Lewis would be hot stuff. Ed could do some good. A retired prairie premier or two might work.
Absolutely. The public needs to hear about the "Corporate Welfare Bums" again, now more than ever.
I will finally be the end of the 'reckless Ontario NDP government' crap as the sainted Conservatives and Liberals have now joined together to try and emulate the stimulus of the NDP bugets that paved the way for the recovery Harris took credit for?
In a way, I understand why the ONDP was dethroned in 1995. I think it was mainly due to a funky-funky electoral system which elected Rae's government by fluke. We've had several phony majority governments in Ontario, and Rae's was no exception. Ontario voters have voted for reasons of cold war era tradition. Those good times are long gone now though, and election turnouts here are lower than ever.
But on the 90's recession, there were people with experience in FDR's government as well as labour oriented groups in Canada telling Rae and Laughren that if they were going to deficit spend, it's better to be hung for a pound than for an ounce. Instead, Rae's government was hung for an ounce. They spent about a billion, although well placed, countercyclical dollars in those deficit budgets. Economic recovery was underway in Ontario by 1994, and Ontario's economic growth was highest in the country for second half of 1992, and 93-94. The NDP spent money in Northern Ontario and places that resembled the thirdworld having known little investment from Toronto in 45 years prior. And Northern Ontarians are still thankful for Rae's NDP, for the infrastructure projects and saving northern industries from collapse in the 90's.
And I think Harper will be hung for an ounce rather than a pound of Keynesian stimulus. Conservative stimulus is going mainly to bail out big banks and corporations by what I can tell. All that nonsense Harper spoke about our banking system not in the same shape Wall Street's in had nothing to do with ReformaTories. Ottawa did attempt to bring in US-style competition for mortgages and insurance. It flopped apparently and is why we never heard about it. They also havent explained to Canadians that they are forking over $75 billion to the banks, and some of that will be financed as debt on the backs of Canadians.
The Tory-Liberal coalition is a dream scenario for the NDP, in the long run. No matter what the government does now, Canadians are in for four years of hell. And those in government or aligned with the government will be badly damaged.
All Jack Layton has to do is maintain a coherent and populist message against whatever the government is doing.
Yes, I have a feeling our two old line parties may believe this is going to be a do-over of the glory years that were Mulroney-Campbell-Chretien-Martin, and that similar phony majorities will buoy them through it all. Harper will ding up national debt through the roof on behalf of their bankster friends, and Iggy or a king in waiting will do the fiscal austerity routine.
But I think they're mistaken if that's the case. The 80's-90s recession was all lyin Brian's doing. I believe this time around it is a fundamental problem with the capitalist system overall, and no matter how much money they shovel to banksters and put us in hawk as a result, real recovery in the US is ten years away. Their neoliberal trade deals to ship massive amounts of Canadian fossil fuels and raw materials south of the border will not save them as this branch plant economy shrinks due to US protectionism this time around.
Absolutely. The public needs to hear about the "Corporate Welfare Bums" again, now more than ever.
As long as they don't mention "The Bobbsey Twins of Bay Street," that would be a good idea.
The line I want to hear is:
Michael Ignatieff is Stephane Dion with eyebrows.
It's time for some snark.
I agree, capitalism is in a crisis of historic proportions. It was brought on by the neo-liberal experiments. Perhaps, its the biggest crisis.
It didn't have to be as bad as its gonna get. We will soon watch governments collapse around the world. With no coherent alternative yet, many countries will descend into chaos. It will be ugly.
I believe, in the end, social democracy will the solution. It will be interesting how the Northern European countries withstand the crisis. Just keeping your nation and economy intact will be an impressive accomplishment going forward.
The line I want to hear is:
Michael Ignatieff is Stephane Dion with eyebrows.
It's time for some snark.
Is that like Jack Layton with his mustache?
It has a little more substance. Adding one to the number of times the Liberals abstained is pretty much the same point. This is a one liner version of the same thing.
What is this thing you call "radio"?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
It is "the source" of the cant that supports rightwing opinion in the Heartland, the Palin people, the angry illiterate that Obama made the mistake of identifying.
It is finding some legs in Canuckistan as well (a term that I understand was first heard by radio Appalachia listeners).
Are Canadians currently too pre-occupied with their own economic circumstances and tuned out of politics altogether or will these ad resonate and be effective? Thoughts ?
According to Maslow, most will not have the presence of mind for politics because they will be thinking of meeting their basic needs first. But maybe they will believe their circumstances would have been better under the Coalition; that could cause them to pay attention.
I only hope Layton doesn't come off like he has in the latest scrums - I think he looked and sounded like a 2-year old having a tantrum. I didn't even hear the message with that medium. Like the decision or not, most people were not in favour of the coalition, so they may not have liked the idea of leaving Harpo in power, but they felt respected by the Liberals because they did not try to use this event to grab power, thereby also asserting that the people (we who voted) made a mistake in electing Harpo in the first place. I have heard a lot of that type of comment.
It has a little more substance. Adding one to the number of times the Liberals abstained is pretty much the same point. This is a one liner version of the same thing
I think Layton helped Dion discover that he does have a spine. It's why they had to get him out of there and install the Igg man.