114

About that $11-billion


 

The latest spot from the Liberal side.


 

About that $11-billion

  1. Yikes.

  2. Yikes.

  3. If Harper gets a majority we may as well just join the US.

  4. This is direct, straight and to the point. Naysayers can quibble over what Harper would do, but after the Ignatieff/Harper debate on health care and tax cuts, I think the Liberals can get some traction off this one.

  5. This is direct, straight and to the point. Naysayers can quibble over what Harper would do, but after the Ignatieff/Harper debate on health care and tax cuts, I think the Liberals can get some traction off this one.

  6. I commented on this on Twitter but that Harper quote that was printed in the Globe in 2010 is actually a 1997 quote. Funny.

  7. I commented on this on Twitter but that Harper quote that was printed in the Globe in 2010 is actually a 1997 quote. Funny.

    • Yes, that reminded me of the CPC attack ad which used a quote of Ignatieff from the early 1990's but cited it as Macleans 2006, because it had been reprinted then. Actually, this whole ad reminds me of CPC ads, except it's not the type of more personal attack the CPC likes to use.

      • But I don't see them cutting and pasting a quote from the auditor general to sell it… Harper's habit of pull quotes to create a boogeyman is going to bite, maybe sooner than later!
        And this is a scare ad I can endorse…

  8. Wow….and the fear mongering bar has been set at a new high ladies and gentlemen.

  9. Wow….and the fear mongering bar has been set at a new high ladies and gentlemen.

    • Desperate times (for the Liberal party) call for desperate measures.

      • That's funny the conservatives have been i desperation mode[ ethically speaking] for 5 years now.

      • looks like one of the CON operatives has jumped ship before Harper jumps shark. Pay back must bite…

        • Why do liberal seem to insist that attack ads are the domain of the CPC? they are the tool of all politicians.
          Quote from Wikipedia, in regards to the 2006 election:
          In an attempt to sway voter sentiment in the final two weeks of the campaign, the Liberals prepared a series of attack ads. One unreleased ad was seen widely as disrespectful of the military and it not only overshadowed the other ads but also forced Martin to defend the controversial ad instead of releasing new policies. During the last week, Martin was forced to defend Harper after the latter was called a separatist by Canadian Auto Workers union leader Buzz Hargrove. Quote from wikipedia on the 2006 election:

  10. Just a tiny bit over the top, no? Can the Stephen Harper, Reptilian Kitten-Eater from Another Planet ads be far behind?

  11. Please, elaborate (I'm going to regret this).

  12. Please, elaborate (I'm going to regret this).

  13. Just a tiny bit over the top, no? Can the Stephen Harper, Reptilian Kitten-Eater from Another Planet ads be far behind?

    • I'd like to think about what you said but my brain left while trying to figure out the Sun's front page today, speaking of over the top. Is it Over the Top day?

      • The Sun may be over the top, but it's not a party that's demanded to be entrusted with running the country.

    • You appear to know too much about operation No more Meows. You will be silenced…

    • wait for the documentary…

  14. I'd like to think about what you said but my brain left while trying to figure out the Sun's front page today, speaking of over the top. Is it Over the Top day?

  15. The Sun may be over the top, but it's not a party that's demanded to be entrusted with running the country.

    • So let me get this strait.
      The government shouldn't fund non-profit organizations?
      The government shouldn't fund health care facilities?
      People who are working to better their community should nto be involved in politics?

      "The VHCC was established in 2007 to further the cause of bringing a hospital to Vaughan, a growing city of 300,000 just north of Toronto. The independent non-profit group had to acknowledge York Central Hospital was in control of the project because hospital construction is a provincial concern. The VHCC then adopted a goal of bringing ancillary health services to a 35-hectare parcel of land purchased just north of Canada's Wonderland amusement park."

      Just asking.

      • Ahem….it's your party….you explain it.

        • The government had better come up with a good explanation as to why it's shovelling millions of taxpayers dollars to Julian Fanitino's campaign financiers, is I think the point of contention here. That Fantino's beneficiaries are also supporting a privately funded health venture is added salt in the wound.

          • I agree….it's no wonder they quit. This isn't right.

        • Emily, I was asking your opinion on the above questions. Pretty simple yes no questions, to be blunt.

  16. I don't want another "Harper Government". but I think this ad is really too much.
    I can't believe that Harper was talking about what the "Feds" should do in 2010. The "quote" from The Globe is clearly doubtful.
    This ad isn't credible. In that, it is reminiscent of the stuff the Conservatives usually put out.

  17. Desperate times (for the Liberal party) call for desperate measures.

  18. I don't want another "Harper Government". but I think this ad is really too much.
    I can't believe that Harper was talking about what the "Feds" should do in 2010. The "quote" from The Globe is clearly doubtful.
    This ad isn't credible. In that, it is reminiscent of the stuff the Conservatives usually put out.

  19. Dear Liberals, I have a simple request. If you are going to accuse Harper of a hidden agenda, could you at least provide us with some sort of timeline. I mean, you've been making these charges since 2004, and since Harper has been in office, he has essentially governed like Chretien or Martin. So lets make a deal. You guys vote Tory, and 5 years from now, if healthcare has been privatized and women have lost the right to choose, I'll buy all of you a beer.

  20. Dear Liberals, I have a simple request. If you are going to accuse Harper of a hidden agenda, could you at least provide us with some sort of timeline. I mean, you've been making these charges since 2004, and since Harper has been in office, he has essentially governed like Chretien or Martin. So lets make a deal. You guys vote Tory, and 5 years from now, if healthcare has been privatized and women have lost the right to choose, I'll buy all of you a beer.

    • Yeah, cuz a beer would really make up for that.

    • I think it is obvious they are playing into the "he's only behaving because he has a minority" thing. Scare people out of giving him a majority=mission accomplished.

      And considering the CPC are using Ignatieff quotes from 2009, out of context and simply not true (raising taxes), I do not think the CPC have anything to complain about here.

    • I agree. And while we're examining the nimble manipulation of "timelines", Ignatieff has been living in Canada since 2006 and has held a seat in the Commons for most of that period.

      So, how long before he's no longer "just visiting"? See, if the Cons can conveniently re-cycle their groundless charges beyond credence, why can't Liberals similarly accuse the the Cons of a "hidden agenda" indefinitely?

    • With a minority government his hands are tied on pursuing any agenda that is not suppourted by the other parties. Are you suggesting that his party would have run things the same way with a majority? I don't the CPC because they are liars, but im alright with the politics… but I still know that the country has been served better by a minority than it would have a majority.

      Its a very sad fact of Canadian politics that we have a winner-takes-all system of government where the 'winner' only manages somewhere around 30% of the national vote to effectively shut down the concerns and interests of the other 70%.

      Any government, so long as its a minority, is ultimately the best thing for Canada. Accountability is a good thing, and our system only allows for that in a minority where the democractic process can actually take place.

  21. It's a good attack ad in that it raises a fearful question amongst those who are prone to not quite trust harper.

    It is what it is, and it's no worse than any other attack ads.

    And harper's MO is most certainly to hide stuff. So it plays on a pretty common idea.

  22. It's a good attack ad in that it raises a fearful question amongst those who are prone to not quite trust harper.

    It is what it is, and it's no worse than any other attack ads.

    And harper's MO is most certainly to hide stuff. So it plays on a pretty common idea.

    • Usually the conservatives who post here call attack ads "truth ads." Yet that's not coming through today. Shoes don't feel as good when they're on other feet, eh?

  23. Usually the conservatives who post here call attack ads "truth ads." Yet that's not coming through today. Shoes don't feel as good when they're on other feet, eh?

  24. Long ago quotes taken out of context: Check. Insinuation: Check. Unflattering photography: Check. Attempts to paint one's opponent as inimical to the interests of the average Canadian: Check. In other words, it's just like a CPC attack ad. Vile, but likely effective. Sauce for the goose, really. Though it feels a bit like the CPC and Liberal war rooms got mixed up in that transporter thingy from 'The Fly'.

  25. This is almost funny.
    They got the quotes wrong, and did anyone catch this:
    'called for MASSIVE cuts to INCREASES in health spending' – We won't spend X more, we'll spend X-Y more. That is a 'cut' in liberal language. :)
    'risky plan to cut 11 billion' – that's how liberals see spending cuts – as a risk. This video would ensure that I DIDN'T vote liberal, if I was ever on the fence. They are pretty much saying that they will always spend more, and the debt keeps going up.

  26. Iggy's angry rant, masquarading as a debate,

    looked desperate.

    So do these ads.

    My goodness, how low will the esteeemed Harvard professor go?

  27. Iggy's angry rant, masquarading as a debate,

    looked desperate.

    So do these ads.

    My goodness, how low will the esteeemed Harvard professor go?

    • Well, he does have to step down into the sewer to fight Harper on his own ground, so there's that.

    • How low does he have to go to be able to look Harper in the eyes?

  28. So let me get this strait.
    The government shouldn't fund non-profit organizations?
    The government shouldn't fund health care facilities?
    People who are working to better their community should nto be involved in politics?

    "The VHCC was established in 2007 to further the cause of bringing a hospital to Vaughan, a growing city of 300,000 just north of Toronto. The independent non-profit group had to acknowledge York Central Hospital was in control of the project because hospital construction is a provincial concern. The VHCC then adopted a goal of bringing ancillary health services to a 35-hectare parcel of land purchased just north of Canada's Wonderland amusement park."

    Just asking.

  29. I think it's fair comment to say that $11 billion in cuts could jeopardize services. I also think it's fair coment to suggest reckless cuts in taxes are creating a deficit which could jeopardize healthcare spending down the road.

    I don't, however, think it's fair comment to pretend the Conservatives are planning to cut healthcare when they've clearly said the opposite.

  30. I think it's fair comment to say that $11 billion in cuts could jeopardize services. I also think it's fair coment to suggest reckless cuts in taxes are creating a deficit which could jeopardize healthcare spending down the road.

    I don't, however, think it's fair comment to pretend the Conservatives are planning to cut healthcare when they've clearly said the opposite.

    • The Liberals aren't pretending the Conservatives are planning to cut health care. But given the $11 billion cuts in public services, they're asking how far those cuts could go – and given Harper's love to two-tiered medicine and hatred of Canada's socialized medicine, this ad is more than fair.

    • Harper has 'clearly said the opposite' on a lot of things….and then done them anyway.

    • This ad is just like the higher taxes CPC ad which strings together some actual stuff (increase in corporate taxes to 2010 rate) with stuff mentioned or imagined in order to make people fear that Ignatieff will raise lots of different taxes.

      The method to the LPC ad is the same – actual stuff together with mentioned stuff to make people fear that Harper won't give healthcare funding a high enough priority. It's a valid concern, since Harper only mentioned the 6% increase after Ignatieff already promised it and Harper doesn't always keep his promises and other things seem to be a higher priority to him – like his crime bills which he will give immediate priority and pay an unspecified amount for – but thought to be over $10B. I thought the debates brought out this concern quite strongly – so this ad will reinforce that perception.

    • They clearly said they wouldn't tax income trusts.
      They clearly said they wouldn't run a deficit.
      They clearly said they wouldn't negotiate with the US over softwood lumber payments.
      They clearly said they wouldn't appoint unelected senators or cabinet ministers.

      How many times do they have to clearly do the opposite of what they've said before people stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?

      • So it's fair game to assume the Opposition are lying too? Listen to yourselves people. If the opponents of sleaze resort to it too, then we accomplish nothing.

        • Please provide the policies that the opposition has promised that it has gone back on.

          Oh wait, they haven't been in power.. so none.

          Am I saying they're honest? No. I'm saying they're currently an unknown.

          The CPC, however, and Harper in particular, are known to be serial liars. Ditch Harper, change the leadership of the CPC, and then some benefit of the doubt can be given again. Until that time, however, trusting Harper is insane.

  31. Ahem….it's your party….you explain it.

  32. More than just Liberals see cuts on Health spending as a risk.

  33. More than just Liberals see cuts on Health spending as a risk.

    • Did you miss the cuts to INCREASES in health spending? Do you understand it. It means spending more, just not as much as other wanted to.

    • and actually, the video says that 11 billion is proposed to be cut. It doesn't say where it will be cut, just that it will be cut. Hence, the liberals see all cuts as risky.
      I am not in favor of health care spending cuts, but that is not what the ad says.

      • Can you trust those cuts to be non-ideological? I don't.

        • Whoever cuts gov't spending has to be a politician.
          All politicians are ideological.
          Therefore you trust no one to cut gov't spending.
          That is bad, as that would guarantee that gov't always gets bigger, and spends more.

          • I don't agree with your second premise. Some are pragmatists. Some use evidence-based decision making. Even if it were true, not all politicians are equally ideological.

          • You are free to disagree, and it is possible for a politician to be pragmatic, but look at the people who go into politics – they are driven by beliefs.
            'not all politicians are equally ideological' – do you mean some or more deeply ideological than others, or that one ideology is superior to another? (ie. on is good, and one is bad) That latter idea would be an opinion statement.

          • Not everyone who goes into politics is a Baird, Cauchon, Pollievre, etc. You see these people because they are high profile and cartoonishly partisan (h/t Kady). There are more sensible people in each party.

            By not equally ideological, I meant just that. Even if every MP were ideological, it stands to reason that some are more driven by ideology than others.

          • fair enough.

  34. The government had better come up with a good explanation as to why it's shovelling millions of taxpayers dollars to Julian Fanitino's campaign financiers, is I think the point of contention here. That Fantino's beneficiaries are also supporting a privately funded health venture is added salt in the wound.

  35. Well, he does have to step down into the sewer to fight Harper on his own ground, so there's that.

  36. The Liberals aren't pretending the Conservatives are planning to cut health care. But given the $11 billion cuts in public services, they're asking how far those cuts could go – and given Harper's love to two-tiered medicine and hatred of Canada's socialized medicine, this ad is more than fair.

  37. I agree….it's no wonder they quit. This isn't right.

  38. Yeah, cuz a beer would really make up for that.

  39. Harper has 'clearly said the opposite' on a lot of things….and then done them anyway.

  40. Really? Is this scarier than a reckless coalition of separatists and socialists lapping at our shores, ready to throw us into chaos and turmoil unless we give Harper a majority? It is to me, because I don't take Harper seriously. But what about for those who do?

  41. That's funny the conservatives have been i desperation mode[ ethically speaking] for 5 years now.

  42. I just posted on AC's blog my hope the libs would come now with an enhanced democratic reform package – instead they do this. What have they learned from Harper and the Martin Chretien years preceeding? Fear works. How depresssing.

  43. I just posted on AC's blog my hope the libs would come now with an enhanced democratic reform package – instead they do this. What have they learned from Harper and the Martin Chretien years preceeding? Fear works. How depresssing.

  44. In the world of real(?) people, I believe Mr. Wells has been awaiting a knowledgeable(?)
    response to a query placed with the Minister of Finance on this very subject.
    Or maybe I'm confusing this with something about Rights and Democracy … anyway, we'll
    see. Maybe the allowable number of questions has been used up.

  45. In the world of real(?) people, I believe Mr. Wells has been awaiting a knowledgeable(?)
    response to a query placed with the Minister of Finance on this very subject.
    Or maybe I'm confusing this with something about Rights and Democracy … anyway, we'll
    see. Maybe the allowable number of questions has been used up.

  46. I think it is obvious they are playing into the "he's only behaving because he has a minority" thing. Scare people out of giving him a majority=mission accomplished.

    And considering the CPC are using Ignatieff quotes from 2009, out of context and simply not true (raising taxes), I do not think the CPC have anything to complain about here.

  47. This ad is just like the higher taxes CPC ad which strings together some actual stuff (increase in corporate taxes to 2010 rate) with stuff mentioned or imagined in order to make people fear that Ignatieff will raise lots of different taxes.

    The method to the LPC ad is the same – actual stuff together with mentioned stuff to make people fear that Harper won't give healthcare funding a high enough priority. It's a valid concern, since Harper only mentioned the 6% increase after Ignatieff already promised it and Harper doesn't always keep his promises and other things seem to be a higher priority to him – like his crime bills which he will give immediate priority and pay an unspecified amount for – but thought to be over $10B. I thought the debates brought out this concern quite strongly – so this ad will reinforce that perception.

  48. Yes, that reminded me of the CPC attack ad which used a quote of Ignatieff from the early 1990's but cited it as Macleans 2006, because it had been reprinted then. Actually, this whole ad reminds me of CPC ads, except it's not the type of more personal attack the CPC likes to use.

  49. I agree. And while we're examining the nimble manipulation of "timelines", Ignatieff has been living in Canada since 2006 and has held a seat in the Commons for most of that period.

    So, how long before he's no longer "just visiting"? See, if the Cons can conveniently re-cycle their groundless charges beyond credence, why can't Liberals similarly accuse the the Cons of a "hidden agenda" indefinitely?

  50. You appear to know too much about operation No more Meows. You will be silenced…

  51. Did you miss the cuts to INCREASES in health spending? Do you understand it. It means spending more, just not as much as other wanted to.

  52. and actually, the video says that 11 billion is proposed to be cut. It doesn't say where it will be cut, just that it will be cut. Hence, the liberals see all cuts as risky.
    I am not in favor of health care spending cuts, but that is not what the ad says.

  53. But I don't see them cutting and pasting a quote from the auditor general to sell it… Harper's habit of pull quotes to create a boogeyman is going to bite, maybe sooner than later!
    And this is a scare ad I can endorse…

  54. looks like one of the CON operatives has jumped ship before Harper jumps shark. Pay back must bite…

  55. wait for the documentary…

  56. How low does he have to go to be able to look Harper in the eyes?

  57. Said the opposite, done the reverse… income trusts, accountability, fiscal responsibility (clement gazebo kits for all CON ridings) access to information etc ad nauseum…

  58. With a minority government his hands are tied on pursuing any agenda that is not suppourted by the other parties. Are you suggesting that his party would have run things the same way with a majority? I don't the CPC because they are liars, but im alright with the politics… but I still know that the country has been served better by a minority than it would have a majority.

    Its a very sad fact of Canadian politics that we have a winner-takes-all system of government where the 'winner' only manages somewhere around 30% of the national vote to effectively shut down the concerns and interests of the other 70%.

    Any government, so long as its a minority, is ultimately the best thing for Canada. Accountability is a good thing, and our system only allows for that in a minority where the democractic process can actually take place.

  59. Can you trust those cuts to be non-ideological? I don't.

  60. And if the costs for healthcare weren't rising yearly, far faster than inflation, you'd have some sort of point.

    As it is those increases to health care just keep the system stable. You start cutting into them and medical providers have to find some way to serve the increased demand with less dollars per patient.

    So it seems you're pointless.

  61. And if the costs for healthcare weren't rising yearly, far faster than inflation, you'd have some sort of point.

    As it is those increases to health care just keep the system stable. You start cutting into them and medical providers have to find some way to serve the increased demand with less dollars per patient.

    So it seems you're pointless.

    • Not pointless at all, but you would need to research to see if your points hold up.
      First all, you would have to find out how much health care cost are increasing, and see if the spending increases are more or less than that.
      After that, you would have to determine what % of the increases to health costs are due to: population increases, bad health policy, unhealthy habits of the population, etc. Then you would have to determine if the best way to tackle EACH or these items is by putting the money directly into health care services, or allocating it elsewhere.
      As far as keeping the system stable, please prove that it is. Most people would say that it is on the verge of collapse. We need to rethink health care in Canada, and have a grown up conversation about it. We don't have the best health care in the world, not even close, and we should. We spend tonnes on it. Perhaps the problem isn't the $, it is the structure of how we deliver the services.
      Harper say this many, many years ago, and has been wanting to fix it ever since. If we stick our heads in the sand, that won't prevent our HC system from failing. Baby boomers will be retiring, and will need more social services, not less. Now is the time to fix the system, as tomorrow will be too late/much more painful.

      • For the money we provide it, it actually is one of the best in the world. There are far fewer that have more effectiveness with less resources. I still contend that if we ever decided to properly fund healthcare, and took steps to stop the college of physicians being an unaccountable gate-keeper for those who want to be doctors, the economies of scale we could leverage would prove we have what is *the* best system in the world to minimize suffering.

        • Can't say that I agree with most of that, unless I saw the stats.
          I do agree that the College is one of the main stumbling blocks that we have to overcome.

  62. They clearly said they wouldn't tax income trusts.
    They clearly said they wouldn't run a deficit.
    They clearly said they wouldn't negotiate with the US over softwood lumber payments.
    They clearly said they wouldn't appoint unelected senators or cabinet ministers.

    How many times do they have to clearly do the opposite of what they've said before people stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?

  63. Whoever cuts gov't spending has to be a politician.
    All politicians are ideological.
    Therefore you trust no one to cut gov't spending.
    That is bad, as that would guarantee that gov't always gets bigger, and spends more.

  64. Emily, I was asking your opinion on the above questions. Pretty simple yes no questions, to be blunt.

  65. I don't agree with your second premise. Some are pragmatists. Some use evidence-based decision making. Even if it were true, not all politicians are equally ideological.

  66. Not pointless at all, but you would need to research to see if your points hold up.
    First all, you would have to find out how much health care cost are increasing, and see if the spending increases are more or less than that.
    After that, you would have to determine what % of the increases to health costs are due to: population increases, bad health policy, unhealthy habits of the population, etc. Then you would have to determine if the best way to tackle EACH or these items is by putting the money directly into health care services, or allocating it elsewhere.
    As far as keeping the system stable, please prove that it is. Most people would say that it is on the verge of collapse. We need to rethink health care in Canada, and have a grown up conversation about it. We don't have the best health care in the world, not even close, and we should. We spend tonnes on it. Perhaps the problem isn't the $, it is the structure of how we deliver the services.
    Harper say this many, many years ago, and has been wanting to fix it ever since. If we stick our heads in the sand, that won't prevent our HC system from failing. Baby boomers will be retiring, and will need more social services, not less. Now is the time to fix the system, as tomorrow will be too late/much more painful.

  67. For the money we provide it, it actually is one of the best in the world. There are far fewer that have more effectiveness with less resources. I still contend that if we ever decided to properly fund healthcare, and took steps to stop the college of physicians being an unaccountable gate-keeper for those who want to be doctors, the economies of scale we could leverage would prove we have what is *the* best system in the world to minimize suffering.

  68. You are free to disagree, and it is possible for a politician to be pragmatic, but look at the people who go into politics – they are driven by beliefs.
    'not all politicians are equally ideological' – do you mean some or more deeply ideological than others, or that one ideology is superior to another? (ie. on is good, and one is bad) That latter idea would be an opinion statement.

  69. Why do liberal seem to insist that attack ads are the domain of the CPC? they are the tool of all politicians.
    Quote from Wikipedia, in regards to the 2006 election:
    In an attempt to sway voter sentiment in the final two weeks of the campaign, the Liberals prepared a series of attack ads. One unreleased ad was seen widely as disrespectful of the military and it not only overshadowed the other ads but also forced Martin to defend the controversial ad instead of releasing new policies. During the last week, Martin was forced to defend Harper after the latter was called a separatist by Canadian Auto Workers union leader Buzz Hargrove. Quote from wikipedia on the 2006 election:

  70. Not everyone who goes into politics is a Baird, Cauchon, Pollievre, etc. You see these people because they are high profile and cartoonishly partisan (h/t Kady). There are more sensible people in each party.

    By not equally ideological, I meant just that. Even if every MP were ideological, it stands to reason that some are more driven by ideology than others.

  71. Can't say that I agree with most of that, unless I saw the stats.
    I do agree that the College is one of the main stumbling blocks that we have to overcome.

  72. fair enough.

  73. So it's fair game to assume the Opposition are lying too? Listen to yourselves people. If the opponents of sleaze resort to it too, then we accomplish nothing.

Sign in to comment.