164

How this works


 

Chris Selley posts the context for the latest clipped quote to appear in an attack ad.

A couple months ago I posted the article from which Mr. Ignatieff’s “beer label” reference is drawn. Last month Dan Gardner considered the context for Conservative criticism of something Mr. Ignatieff had said about Canada’s peacekeeping reputation.


 

How this works

  1. Yup, and it's time we called the tactic what it is…..lying.

  2. Yup, and it's time we called the tactic what it is…..lying.

    • q.v. Andrew Coyne: "Time for a Truth in Politics Act"

    • I was just thinking about this. Look, I hate the ad, and like every political ad I've seen it makes want to not vote for whoever made it. But why is it lying? The LPC do plan to raise taxes so it doesn't even misrepresent what they are planning to do.

      • "Micheal Ignatieff: higher prices, higher taxes, higher spending"

        I didn't know the Liberal platform included government control of prices…

        • under the Liberal cap and trade scheme, prices of everything will go up.

          so every little bit of that sentence is absolutely and objectively true.

          • Isn't cap-and-trade part of the Conservative platform too?

          • Yes it is…it's also the American solution.

          • That's one of the parts that they don't really mean…

            Conservative party supporters are very saavy about which Conservative promises are valid and which are just window dressing. You have to know how to read between the lines and Conservative supporters are smart enough to do that. Except those unfortunate Income Trust Investors, they kinda blew that one.

          • HOW inconvenient.

          • yes but they're not dumb enough as to actually implement it.

          • You mean the Conservatives are lying? Never thought I'd live to see the day… :)

          • that's my take on it. if i felt for one second they were actually serious about cap and trade i would not vote for them.

          • So, pray tell old boy, why then ARE you voting for them?

          • The Best of the Worst, maybe.

          • because they wont implement something as monstrously dumb as cap and trade.

            because they will lower taxes.

            because they are not thieves like the Liberals.

            because Harper makes me proud of Canada on the world stage (rejecting global warming, not being the arab league's b1tch on Israel, being rejected at the UN – yes, this is a major plus for me, I loathe the UN)

            because harper wont shut down the oil sands

            because harper will be less of quebec's b1tch then iggy would.

            because iggy is an opportunist douchebag who has the audacity to want to govern a country which he left 30 years ago.

            because liberals are a bunch of identity politics dividers with no principles.

            because harper is the last hope this country has of not being broken up (im not talking about the whiny retards in quebec, im talking about alberta who has been fleeced by Ontario and Quebec long enough)

            because Liberals like to perpetuate misery through dependency programs which ensures those who depend on the programs must vote liberals.

            because liberals cant think of a policy which is not some variation of National [Child/Elder/Health..] Care [Strategy/Plan/…]

            because Iggy didnt even have the decency to win the Liberal leadership

            because Iggy was willing to join a destructive coalition with those who want to destroy this country

            i could go on but i have work to do.

          • i.e. they are – once again – deliberately lying to te Canadian public. Thanks for the confirmation, Alfanerd!

          • I guarantee that prices will go up if the Conservatives are elected. By about 2% a year, in fact.

      • Because what he actually said was….'When Tories say we're increasing taxes, damn right we are. We're putting corporate taxes back up to where they were a year and a half ago. But that's it. Families are getting the benefit.'

        By leaving out the second sentence, you change the meaning.

        It's lying.

        .

        • No its not, at least not in that sentence. It's not a change in meaning, the LPC plans to raise taxes. Now I agree the ad doesn't say why but it's a reasonable assumption that they want to raise taxes to spend on something.

          However, I do agree with John K, the part about "higher prices" does seem completely unfounded.

          Again, please understand, I hate the ad, I think its classless and vile, but I don't think it's lying to say that the LPC plans to raise taxes.

          • Yes, it's lying.

            There are sins of 'commission' and sins of 'omission'….and this is one of 'omission'.

            By not providing the second sentence, you change the meaning of the first.

          • OK, I'm done after this but I'm afraid it really isn't a lie. The answer to the question "Do the Liberals plan to raise taxes" is yes.

            I'd agree with you if the Liberals plan to raise taxes was contingent on something, "We plan to raise taxes if the moon is pulled out of orbit" for example. In that case the ad would be misleading and dishonest.

            But as it stands they are cherry picking the bits of the Liberal platform that they think people would dislike and highlighting them. That's not very nice but it isn't lying.

          • You can't frame the language to suit your own purposes.

            It's lying.

      • Because by quoting a snippet of a much longer explanation, it misrepresents the original statement.

        However, of the examples linked to, the "raising taxes" video is the least egregious, as in the other cases, the quoted text is given entirely without context, effectively implying the opposite of what was meant.

        • Because by quoting a snippet of a much longer explanation, it misrepresents the original statement.

          I get that (I'm not a complete idiot :) ). My point was that the part about raising taxes is not a lie. I hope I've made it abundantly clear that I do not support this ad (or pretty much any political advertising), but in terms of providing (limited and out of context) information about the LPC platform this one was reasonably correct (something that you also alluded to).

          • If you think it isn't a lie, then you and I have very different meanings for the word.

            lie 2 (l)
            n.
            1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
            2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
            v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
            v.intr.
            1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
            2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

            The italicized definitions, IMO, match up exactly with what the CPC have done in this ad.

          • So how is it deceptive? Do the Liberals plan to raise taxes – yes they do. That 's pretty much all the ad says, so explain to me what this is going to deceive people into thinking.

            Are you suggesting that someone who views the ad will think they mean that the Liberals will raise personal income tax?

            As I've said previously AFAIK the Liberals don't plan to "raise prices" so I'm perfectly happy to call that a lie.

          • Actually, the Liberals are talking about raising one tax, not taxes, so even on this point as stated, the Conservative ad is off-base,

            I do think the authors of this ad want viewers to believe that the Liberals will raise personal income tax.
            Don't you?

            And don't you think that examples (yes, check the links) are rather blatant attempts to mislead?

          • My very narrow point is just that I didn't think this particular ad was lying. The vast majority of political ads from any party that I've seen or heard are attempts to mislead (which is why I despise them).

            To be honest I didn't really think very deeply about what the ad wants viewers to think, because I assumed that it was going to be alarmist nonsense. My hope is that people are not actually using political ads from the Conservatives to get information about the Liberal platform (and vice versa).

          • They are deliberately trying to create a false impression – that Liberals will be taxing Canadian familiesnot reversing a corporat tax cut. That is the message I received loud and clear when watching the ad; I doubt very much that I'm the only one who understood that, or that my understanding is NOT what they intended to convey.

            Hence, both italicized definitions in my preceding post are accurate descriptions of what the CPC have done in this ad.

          • They are deliberately trying to create a false impression – that Liberals will be taxing Canadian families

            The ads don't even mention families. Either you're talking about the wrong ad, or you're confused about something.

          • I'm going to steal from Jonathan McKinnel, below, as he says it better than I apparently have been doing:

            "without the context, you don't know WHY they're doing or WHICH Taxes specifically they are raising (i.e. Corporate)

            This leads people to believe that the liberals are raising taxes for everyone (Individuals) which is not the case, in fact they're offering the general public more money for things that they might need. "

            The unedited quote was explicitly about corporate taxes, but you can't tell that from the snippet; the ad is aimed at everyday citizens, not corporations. Whose taxes will the listener assume are being raised? You and me. The everyday citizens. Families. False impression created.

          • After my last reply, I decided to do an informal poll of my coworkers. I sent them the link to the ad, and asked them one question: "Who is being taxed?" The ones who responded all said "everyone".

            I then gave them the link to the full quote and asked "do you think the CPC ad contitutes a lie, or something less than a lie?" They all replied "A lie."

            It's a small sample and a very unscientific poll but it certainly supports my own response – that an average person watching the ad will think the out-of-context quote means something other than what was said. By the definition I quoted earlier, that makes the ad a ie. And again, my poll supports that that's how average people will define it as well, if they also see the full clip.

          • I'm sure you're not an idiot.

      • Right but without the context, you don't know WHY they're doing or WHICH Taxes specifically they are raising (i.e. Corporate)

        This leads people to believe that the liberals are raising taxes for everyone (Individuals) which is not the case, in fact they're offering the general public more money for things that they might need.

        • <beats head against table> But they are raising taxes so it isn't a lie. When they say that the Liberals are raising taxes they are not uttering an untruth.

          And seeing how we all hate misleading people so much I'd take issue with this:

          in fact they're offering the general public more money for things that they might need.

          Now that's a really slanted comment that's pretty close to being a lie. There is nothing in the Liberal party platform (that I'm aware of) that is offering the general public more money for things that they might need. The only way to do that is through a general income tax (or GST) cut. As I understand it the Liberal party is targeting programs to people that they think need help, or that might vote for them if you want to be cynical. Child care programs and the Learning Passport are not available to the general public, just to specific groups.

          • Dude…before you knock a hole in your head or the table, step back for a minute and realize where you are. This is Wherry's blog. There are different rules for the Conservatives here that don't apply to the other parties, and the cognitive dissonance that would introduce in normal people is generally frowned upon here.

            Once you acclimate yourself to these simple truths here, you'll do just fine.

          • Oh Man, Don't ruin it. It was just getting good.

      • It is.. and it isn't. The ad is intended to counter Liberal claims that they won't raise taxes on families – which is what, in context, is what Mr. Apps said. By extracting a snippet and taking it out of context, they have given it an entirely different meaning. In my opinion, this ought to count as slander, and ought to be actionable.

        I also wonder HOW the parties get clips from broadcasts to use. Did the broadcaster give permission? If not, isn't this then technically a breach of copyright? And if they did, don't the broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure fair and accurate usage of the material they allow to be used?

        I haven't read Coyne's "Time for a Truth in Politics Act" yet; it's my next stop. I'm hoping he has raised some of these points.

        • he ad is intended to counter Liberal claims that they won't raise taxes on families – which is what, in context, is what Mr. Apps said

          Say what? The ad is intended to counter Liberal claims that they won't raise taxes–full stop. The Liberals have been trying to pretend that their corporate tax hike isn't really "raising taxes".

          • They have never said they won't raise taxes.

            The conservatives falsely claim they are not raising taxes, when they are implementing a defacto tax increase on the oil sands.

          • Emphasis on families. That, to me, is the clear message conveyed by the ad – and which is patently false. It is not explicitly stated, but it is clearly implied. The deliberate obsfucation and misdirection is a form of lying.

          • Emphasis on families. That, to me, is the clear message conveyed by the ad – and which is patently false.

            Huh? The ad doesn't even mention families! How can you claim that is the "clear message conveyed by the ad"? Are you sure you're talking about the right ad?

  3. q.v. Andrew Coyne: "Time for a Truth in Politics Act"

  4. so the Liberals are raising taxes. What's new?

  5. so the Liberals are raising taxes. What's new?

    • Well, Liberals raising taxes would indeed be new seeing as they cut more in taxes during their last time in government than Harper has. And unlike Harper, they didn't also significantly increase taxes at the same time as cutting them.

      But you are right. The federal government raising taxes is nothing new. Harper has been doing that since his first month in office: raised our income taxes, taxed income trusts breaking a fundamental campaign promise, introduced an air tax he used to oppose and say would crush the airline industry, added a job-killing payroll tax increase. Like Reagan, Harper has increased taxes and decreased taxes and left a structural deficit as a result.

  6. I was just thinking about this. Look, I hate the ad, and like every political ad I've seen it makes want to not vote for whoever made it. But why is it lying? The LPC do plan to raise taxes so it doesn't even misrepresent what they are planning to do.

  7. The examples given above are show clearly that the Conservative war room is capable of pretty much anything.
    I would be interested to see if other posters can find similarly misleading (as in deceitful) ads from the other parties.

  8. "Micheal Ignatieff: higher prices, higher taxes, higher spending"

    I didn't know the Liberal platform included government control of prices…

  9. The examples given above are show clearly that the Conservative war room is capable of pretty much anything.
    I would be interested to see if other posters can find similarly misleading (as in deceitful) ads from the other parties.

    • what's deceitful about that ad? it's 100% accurate.

      • Really? Can you show me how Ignatieff is going to be "increasing prices" please.

        • cap and trade.

          • You mean the same cap and trade scheme proposed by the CPC in their throne speech after the last election?

          • the point is that it is truthful that Iggy will raise prices on everything.

          • It's also true to say that prices will rise if Harper is elected. It's called inflation, and the goal is have 2% a year. So, I suppose you wouldn't oppose ads suggesting that if Harper is elected, prices will rise?

          • no i wouldnt. geez you guys live in a bubble world. you think us conservatives would be all offended by liberals spouting nonsense about us. here's a clue idiot: when you're a conservative, liberals spouting lies and nonsense about you is a daily occurrence. we're used to it.

          • Are conservatives also rude, as a rule? Or is that just you?

          • I see above that you discount the conservatives interest in the same cap and trade policy as an empty promise, so I won't mention it again.

            But rather than try an insist that this ad is truthful and defend the indefensible, why don't you look for examples of misleading/untruthful publicity from the other parties (as I suggested in my earlier post)? I'm pretty sure you'll find some.

          • of course I would find some, but this ad is 100% accurate. im not saying that conservatives never had a misleading ad, but this is not one of them. this ad would only be misleading if the context was that Alfred Apps had said "the next sentence is going to be a lie: damn right we will raise taxes". but that wasnt it. the context was a discussion about liberals raising taxes.

      • "what's deceitful about that ad? it's 100% accurate."

        Well, only in a Bev Oda kind of way.

  10. Because what he actually said was….'When Tories say we're increasing taxes, damn right we are. We're putting corporate taxes back up to where they were a year and a half ago. But that's it. Families are getting the benefit.'

    By leaving out the second sentence, you change the meaning.

    It's lying.

    .

  11. Still beats someone who wants to be PM calling his own country a "second tier nation and content to be that way", a "culture of defeat", "norther European socialist welfare state of the worst kind", trying to set up provincial firewalls, saying he didn't care if Canada disintegrated into one, two or ten governments, etc.

  12. Still beats someone who wants to be PM calling his own country a "second tier nation and content to be that way", a "culture of defeat", "norther European socialist welfare state of the worst kind", trying to set up provincial firewalls, saying he didn't care if Canada disintegrated into one, two or ten governments, etc.

  13. under the Liberal cap and trade scheme, prices of everything will go up.

    so every little bit of that sentence is absolutely and objectively true.

  14. what's deceitful about that ad? it's 100% accurate.

  15. No its not, at least not in that sentence. It's not a change in meaning, the LPC plans to raise taxes. Now I agree the ad doesn't say why but it's a reasonable assumption that they want to raise taxes to spend on something.

    However, I do agree with John K, the part about "higher prices" does seem completely unfounded.

    Again, please understand, I hate the ad, I think its classless and vile, but I don't think it's lying to say that the LPC plans to raise taxes.

  16. Because by quoting a snippet of a much longer explanation, it misrepresents the original statement.

    However, of the examples linked to, the "raising taxes" video is the least egregious, as in the other cases, the quoted text is given entirely without context, effectively implying the opposite of what was meant.

  17. Well, Liberals raising taxes would indeed be new seeing as they cut more in taxes during their last time in government than Harper has. And unlike Harper, they didn't also significantly increase taxes at the same time as cutting them.

    But you are right. The federal government raising taxes is nothing new. Harper has been doing that since his first month in office: raised our income taxes, taxed income trusts breaking a fundamental campaign promise, introduced an air tax he used to oppose and say would crush the airline industry, added a job-killing payroll tax increase. Like Reagan, Harper has increased taxes and decreased taxes and left a structural deficit as a result.

  18. Really? Can you show me how Ignatieff is going to be "increasing prices" please.

  19. Isn't cap-and-trade part of the Conservative platform too?

  20. "what's deceitful about that ad? it's 100% accurate."

    Well, only in a Bev Oda kind of way.

  21. Canadians agree with Alfred Apps.

  22. Yes it is…it's also the American solution.

  23. Canadians agree with Alfred Apps.

    • Liberals agree with Alfred Apps—-damn right !

    • Or, at any rate, with the unedited Apps.

  24. Yes, it's lying.

    There are sins of 'commission' and sins of 'omission'….and this is one of 'omission'.

    By not providing the second sentence, you change the meaning of the first.

  25. Because by quoting a snippet of a much longer explanation, it misrepresents the original statement.

    I get that (I'm not a complete idiot :) ). My point was that the part about raising taxes is not a lie. I hope I've made it abundantly clear that I do not support this ad (or pretty much any political advertising), but in terms of providing (limited and out of context) information about the LPC platform this one was reasonably correct (something that you also alluded to).

  26. You don't think there was context for these statements too Ted? Were they uttered in a vacuum? Are only Conservatives allowed to be taken out of context in the world occupied by you and Wherry and Gardner?

  27. Right but without the context, you don't know WHY they're doing or WHICH Taxes specifically they are raising (i.e. Corporate)

    This leads people to believe that the liberals are raising taxes for everyone (Individuals) which is not the case, in fact they're offering the general public more money for things that they might need.

  28. That's one of the parts that they don't really mean…

    Conservative party supporters are very saavy about which Conservative promises are valid and which are just window dressing. You have to know how to read between the lines and Conservative supporters are smart enough to do that. Except those unfortunate Income Trust Investors, they kinda blew that one.

  29. HOW inconvenient.

  30. My favourite part of the comments over there is the one about how corporations employ the people to pay the taxes to fund the education, etc.

    What the poster probably doesn't know is that small business employs more than all the big corporations. And this Conservative tax cut doesn't address them at all, since they are generally "Canadian Controlled Private Corporations" which is an entirely different tax. So we're really only cutting the big corporations that pay their CEOs multi-millions of dollars a year. And, according to Canadian Business, those big corporations have taken the tax cuts they've already gotten, and put it into "reserves" not employment. Oh, but I bet the CEOs got a nice raise.

  31. OK, I'm done after this but I'm afraid it really isn't a lie. The answer to the question "Do the Liberals plan to raise taxes" is yes.

    I'd agree with you if the Liberals plan to raise taxes was contingent on something, "We plan to raise taxes if the moon is pulled out of orbit" for example. In that case the ad would be misleading and dishonest.

    But as it stands they are cherry picking the bits of the Liberal platform that they think people would dislike and highlighting them. That's not very nice but it isn't lying.

  32. My favourite part of the comments over there is the one about how corporations employ the people to pay the taxes to fund the education, etc.

    What the poster probably doesn't know is that small business employs more than all the big corporations. And this Conservative tax cut doesn't address them at all, since they are generally "Canadian Controlled Private Corporations" which is an entirely different tax. So we're really only cutting the big corporations that pay their CEOs multi-millions of dollars a year. And, according to Canadian Business, those big corporations have taken the tax cuts they've already gotten, and put it into "reserves" not employment. Oh, but I bet the CEOs got a nice raise.

  33. You can't frame the language to suit your own purposes.

    It's lying.

  34. yes but they're not dumb enough as to actually implement it.

  35. Of course, the Liberals really are raising corporate taxes. However, they've used every rhetorical trick in the book to obscure this inconvenient fact. When Apps said: "Damn right we're raising taxes", he spoke the truth, albeit accidentally.

    This is an example of a "Kinsley Gaffe", succinctly defined as follows: "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."

    A Kinsley Gaffe happens when someone who works in politics inadvertently says something publicly that they privately believe is true, but would ordinarily not say publicly because they think it's politically harmful.

  36. cap and trade.

  37. Of course, the Liberals really are raising corporate taxes. However, they've used every rhetorical trick in the book to obscure this inconvenient fact. When Apps said: "Damn right we're raising taxes", he spoke the truth, albeit accidentally.

    This is an example of a "Kinsley Gaffe", succinctly defined as follows: "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."

    A Kinsley Gaffe happens when someone who works in politics inadvertently says something publicly that they privately believe is true, but would ordinarily not say publicly because they think it's politically harmful.

    • Indeed, he spoke the truth. And Canadians agree with him.

  38. <beats head against table> But they are raising taxes so it isn't a lie. When they say that the Liberals are raising taxes they are not uttering an untruth.

    And seeing how we all hate misleading people so much I'd take issue with this:

    in fact they're offering the general public more money for things that they might need.

    Now that's a really slanted comment that's pretty close to being a lie. There is nothing in the Liberal party platform (that I'm aware of) that is offering the general public more money for things that they might need. The only way to do that is through a general income tax (or GST) cut. As I understand it the Liberal party is targeting programs to people that they think need help, or that might vote for them if you want to be cynical. Child care programs and the Learning Passport are not available to the general public, just to specific groups.

  39. ……Great to see Wherry has decided to refrain from the trivial scandals of the campaign and concentrate on the policies of the parties and consequences of political ads.

    I`m sure he feels badly about devoting all that time to the students in London at the Conservative rally so he`s decided that the past racist history of that Liberal candidate in Quebec is just too trivial to talk about and those remarks about sexual assault from the Liberal candidate in Wildrose—–well, it would be better to just let that go away.

  40. ……Great to see Wherry has decided to refrain from the trivial scandals of the campaign and concentrate on the policies of the parties and consequences of political ads.

    I`m sure he feels badly about devoting all that time to the students in London at the Conservative rally so he`s decided that the past racist history of that Liberal candidate in Quebec is just too trivial to talk about and those remarks about sexual assault from the Liberal candidate in Wildrose—–well, it would be better to just let that go away.

  41. Indeed, he spoke the truth. And Canadians agree with him.

  42. Liberals agree with Alfred Apps—-damn right !

  43. You mean the Conservatives are lying? Never thought I'd live to see the day… :)

  44. It is.. and it isn't. The ad is intended to counter Liberal claims that they won't raise taxes on families – which is what, in context, is what Mr. Apps said. By extracting a snippet and taking it out of context, they have given it an entirely different meaning. In my opinion, this ought to count as slander, and ought to be actionable.

    I also wonder HOW the parties get clips from broadcasts to use. Did the broadcaster give permission? If not, isn't this then technically a breach of copyright? And if they did, don't the broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure fair and accurate usage of the material they allow to be used?

    I haven't read Coyne's "Time for a Truth in Politics Act" yet; it's my next stop. I'm hoping he has raised some of these points.

  45. So Wherry is now resorting to complaining that the Conservatives are telling the truth about Liberal plans, and in fact they're even going through the trouble of proving it by showing Liberals actually saying it.

    If Wherry wants the public to know why the Liberals are raising taxes which is a lot more nuanced and lengthy, then they should explain it themselves. They should go out and tell the public why they are raising taxes. It's not the conservatives job to explain the Liberals platform, it's the Conservatives job to identify the negative things about the Liberal platform.

    I wonder if Wherry is expecting the Liberals to start explaining to the public all of Bruce Carson's good qualities and experience that were the driving force behind Harper's decision to hire him. Will we be seeing that? After all, the Liberals hired him too, so they know what kind of skills the man possesses.

  46. that's my take on it. if i felt for one second they were actually serious about cap and trade i would not vote for them.

  47. So Wherry is now resorting to complaining that the Conservatives are telling the truth about Liberal plans, and in fact they're even going through the trouble of proving it by showing Liberals actually saying it.

    If Wherry wants the public to know why the Liberals are raising taxes which is a lot more nuanced and lengthy, then they should explain it themselves. They should go out and tell the public why they are raising taxes. It's not the conservatives job to explain the Liberals platform, it's the Conservatives job to identify the negative things about the Liberal platform.

    I wonder if Wherry is expecting the Liberals to start explaining to the public all of Bruce Carson's good qualities and experience that were the driving force behind Harper's decision to hire him. Will we be seeing that? After all, the Liberals hired him too, so they know what kind of skills the man possesses.

    • "So Wherry is now resorting to complaining that the Conservatives are telling the ^MISLEADING^ truth about Liberal plans, and in fact they're even going through the trouble of proving it by showing Liberals actually saying it. "

      There I fixed it.

      Anyway, this is another good example of why political advertising adds next to nothing to the quality of our national debate. Distilling this policy difference down to "TAXES!!!!1!" is just damned depressing. We absolutely deserve the terrible governments we get.

      • There's nothing misleading. Are they raising taxes? Yes. It's 100% true. Just to prove that they're not misleading anyone, they showed the guy saying it himself. There's nothing the slightest bit misleading.

        The sky is blue. That's not a misleading statement. Oh, but Andrew, you think that's misleading because I didn't say that it's because blue light has a longer wavelength than the rest of the visible spectrum. How could I be so callous to tell you the sky is blue without telling you why! So malicious! So wrong! It's not even the same shade of blue everywhere! And I said nothing about that! It's really many shades of blue! My god, what a misleading fellow I am.

      • So, do you think it's misleading for the Liberals to be criticizing the corporate tax cuts, when only 6 Liberal MPs in the House of commons voted against them?

        How about the fact that the Liberal leader at the time claimed he would have lowered them even more? He said this just before these very same tax cuts (yes, the very same corporate tax cuts) were enacted? He said they didn't go low enough. These very same Liberals are saying now that the tax cuts are irresponsible. The very same tax cuts.

        Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has pledged to further reduce the Canadian federal corporate tax rate to better compete with other countries and strengthen Canada's economic sovereignty. …Dion told the Economic Club of Toronto…“A lower corporate tax rate is a powerful weapon in the federal government's arsenal to generate more investment, higher living standards and better jobs.” …The previous Liberal government reduced the federal corporate tax rate to 19% from 28%. Dion said he would go deeper than the Conservatives have done with their reduction to 18.5% in 2011. …“If you lower the corporate tax rate, you lower the cost of capital for Canadian companies. Therefore, these companies are induced to spend more on capital equipment. As for foreign investment, we need a big hook to snare investment, including Canadian investment, that might otherwise go south of the border. Finally, it would strengthen Canadian companies against foreign takeover," Dion concluded.

        Do you think it's a little misleading for these very same Liberals to be claiming that the Conservative tax cuts go too low when these very same Liberals were claiming at the time they were enacted that they did not go low enough?

        • Dion also had a genius carbon tax plan, glad you agree with that too.

        • I support corporate tax cuts in general. I don't think there is a gulf of difference between 18% or 15% or 14% or whatever.

          I think you're being a bit disingenuous about the Green Shift. The whole idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax is that you cut other taxes to offset the economic impact. So, I don't see why it's inconsistent. Dion wasn't just arguing to cut the corporate rate to 14%, but to do that WHILE setting a carbon tax of $40/tonne. The Green Shift was one of the best tax reform packages we've seen at the federal level in a long time. Our of public debate consisted of totally distorted claims about its economic impact on the economy (go read some serious analysis–carbon taxes can be very benign, we already have a partial one in the form of fuel excise) and prices and insincere complaints about how complicated it was and how deary me, how could we ever begin to fathom it.

          The Liberals here in 2011 aren't saying that corporate tax cuts are a bad thing. They're saying that it's a matter of priorities. Harper is suggesting families wait for his bonanza of goodies for five years while corporations get a cut now, Iggy is suggesting corporations wait until the budget is balanced and families get the goodies now. Make of that what you will. I'd rather they use an increase in the GST back to 6% (which would cover their platform's cost), but that's politically difficult to sell.

          I think it's also worth noting that most of Harper's basket of goodies is going to go to wealthier families, ie those with family incomes around $100k-$150k+ between income splitting and the TFSA increase. Iggy's seem a bit more widely dispersed across the middle class. I think this is a strategy of playing to bases. Harper is promising big changes for a small swing demographic.

          • Well, whether or not you have a point about corporate taxes, carbon taxes and GST taxes and all that other stuff (interesting, Liberals are campaigning now that the former two should be higher, and in 2006 campaigned that the GST should be higher)…

            I do think it's misleading to say lowering corporate taxes is a good idea, and then the next day when someone else has lowered corporate taxes, you change your tune and criticize the lower corporate rate, saying you want to raise them back to where they were. Then you have the gall to complain that someone is repeating that you want to raise them back to where they were. God forbid people should know about this flip-flop! The nerve!

            I think the whole thing could not possibly be more misleading.

  48. i.e. they are – once again – deliberately lying to te Canadian public. Thanks for the confirmation, Alfanerd!

  49. If you think it isn't a lie, then you and I have very different meanings for the word.

    lie 2 (l)
    n.
    1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
    2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
    v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
    v.intr.
    1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
    2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

    The italicized definitions, IMO, match up exactly with what the CPC have done in this ad.

  50. Or, at any rate, with the unedited Apps.

  51. he ad is intended to counter Liberal claims that they won't raise taxes on families – which is what, in context, is what Mr. Apps said

    Say what? The ad is intended to counter Liberal claims that they won't raise taxes–full stop. The Liberals have been trying to pretend that their corporate tax hike isn't really "raising taxes".

  52. Dude…before you knock a hole in your head or the table, step back for a minute and realize where you are. This is Wherry's blog. There are different rules for the Conservatives here that don't apply to the other parties, and the cognitive dissonance that would introduce in normal people is generally frowned upon here.

    Once you acclimate yourself to these simple truths here, you'll do just fine.

  53. So how is it deceptive? Do the Liberals plan to raise taxes – yes they do. That 's pretty much all the ad says, so explain to me what this is going to deceive people into thinking.

    Are you suggesting that someone who views the ad will think they mean that the Liberals will raise personal income tax?

    As I've said previously AFAIK the Liberals don't plan to "raise prices" so I'm perfectly happy to call that a lie.

  54. Actually, the Liberals are talking about raising one tax, not taxes, so even on this point as stated, the Conservative ad is off-base,

    I do think the authors of this ad want viewers to believe that the Liberals will raise personal income tax.
    Don't you?

    And don't you think that examples (yes, check the links) are rather blatant attempts to mislead?

  55. I guarantee that prices will go up if the Conservatives are elected. By about 2% a year, in fact.

  56. I'm sure you're not an idiot.

  57. I think more context is in order, since context is the order of the day. Wherry, perhaps you could actually explain to the readers that the Liberals did not vote against these corporate tax cuts in 2007. So far the Liberals have failed to explain why the reasons for raising corporate taxes today did not apply in 2007.

  58. I think more context is in order, since context is the order of the day. Wherry, perhaps you could actually explain to the readers that the Liberals did not vote against these corporate tax cuts in 2007. So far the Liberals have failed to explain why the reasons for raising corporate taxes today did not apply in 2007.

    • We were in surplus back then, for one. Today, every dollar of those cuts is borrowed. More pragmatically, the Liberals were quaking in their boots back in 2007 and weren't interested in triggering an election.

      All that said, the corporate tax reduction is the single best policy Harper has introduced. Props for that. We're already most of the way there, and I'm not sure the difference between 18% and 15% will make a massive difference. We're moving towards cutting rates in half, and that should already have a significant impact. I'm okay with waiting a few years to see some results, and the budget is balanced, before we further cut corporate taxes.

      After all, what is magic about the number 15%? Is that the one best rate for corporate taxes? Why not 10%? I think it's entirely okay to see what results we get from the cuts so far.

  59. They have never said they won't raise taxes.

    The conservatives falsely claim they are not raising taxes, when they are implementing a defacto tax increase on the oil sands.

  60. They are deliberately trying to create a false impression – that Liberals will be taxing Canadian familiesnot reversing a corporat tax cut. That is the message I received loud and clear when watching the ad; I doubt very much that I'm the only one who understood that, or that my understanding is NOT what they intended to convey.

    Hence, both italicized definitions in my preceding post are accurate descriptions of what the CPC have done in this ad.

  61. You mean the same cap and trade scheme proposed by the CPC in their throne speech after the last election?

  62. There's hypocrisy on both sides.

  63. There's hypocrisy on both sides.

  64. Emphasis on families. That, to me, is the clear message conveyed by the ad – and which is patently false. It is not explicitly stated, but it is clearly implied. The deliberate obsfucation and misdirection is a form of lying.

  65. the point is that it is truthful that Iggy will raise prices on everything.

  66. I see above that you discount the conservatives interest in the same cap and trade policy as an empty promise, so I won't mention it again.

    But rather than try an insist that this ad is truthful and defend the indefensible, why don't you look for examples of misleading/untruthful publicity from the other parties (as I suggested in my earlier post)? I'm pretty sure you'll find some.

  67. "So Wherry is now resorting to complaining that the Conservatives are telling the ^MISLEADING^ truth about Liberal plans, and in fact they're even going through the trouble of proving it by showing Liberals actually saying it. "

    There I fixed it.

    Anyway, this is another good example of why political advertising adds next to nothing to the quality of our national debate. Distilling this policy difference down to "TAXES!!!!1!" is just damned depressing. We absolutely deserve the terrible governments we get.

  68. Emphasis on families. That, to me, is the clear message conveyed by the ad – and which is patently false.

    Huh? The ad doesn't even mention families! How can you claim that is the "clear message conveyed by the ad"? Are you sure you're talking about the right ad?

  69. It's also true to say that prices will rise if Harper is elected. It's called inflation, and the goal is have 2% a year. So, I suppose you wouldn't oppose ads suggesting that if Harper is elected, prices will rise?

  70. So, pray tell old boy, why then ARE you voting for them?

  71. The Best of the Worst, maybe.

  72. My very narrow point is just that I didn't think this particular ad was lying. The vast majority of political ads from any party that I've seen or heard are attempts to mislead (which is why I despise them).

    To be honest I didn't really think very deeply about what the ad wants viewers to think, because I assumed that it was going to be alarmist nonsense. My hope is that people are not actually using political ads from the Conservatives to get information about the Liberal platform (and vice versa).

  73. Oh Man, Don't ruin it. It was just getting good.

  74. of course I would find some, but this ad is 100% accurate. im not saying that conservatives never had a misleading ad, but this is not one of them. this ad would only be misleading if the context was that Alfred Apps had said "the next sentence is going to be a lie: damn right we will raise taxes". but that wasnt it. the context was a discussion about liberals raising taxes.

  75. no i wouldnt. geez you guys live in a bubble world. you think us conservatives would be all offended by liberals spouting nonsense about us. here's a clue idiot: when you're a conservative, liberals spouting lies and nonsense about you is a daily occurrence. we're used to it.

  76. Are conservatives also rude, as a rule? Or is that just you?

  77. because they wont implement something as monstrously dumb as cap and trade.

    because they will lower taxes.

    because they are not thieves like the Liberals.

    because Harper makes me proud of Canada on the world stage (rejecting global warming, not being the arab league's b1tch on Israel, being rejected at the UN – yes, this is a major plus for me, I loathe the UN)

    because harper wont shut down the oil sands

    because harper will be less of quebec's b1tch then iggy would.

    because iggy is an opportunist douchebag who has the audacity to want to govern a country which he left 30 years ago.

    because liberals are a bunch of identity politics dividers with no principles.

    because harper is the last hope this country has of not being broken up (im not talking about the whiny retards in quebec, im talking about alberta who has been fleeced by Ontario and Quebec long enough)

    because Liberals like to perpetuate misery through dependency programs which ensures those who depend on the programs must vote liberals.

    because liberals cant think of a policy which is not some variation of National [Child/Elder/Health..] Care [Strategy/Plan/…]

    because Iggy didnt even have the decency to win the Liberal leadership

    because Iggy was willing to join a destructive coalition with those who want to destroy this country

    i could go on but i have work to do.

  78. You are kidding, right, johnny? The Cons have spent literally millions of $ taking snippets out of Iggy context and twisting them into wholly different meanings.

    The problem for the Cons is that real context invariably makes Iggy look better, smarter and the meaning usually the complete opposite of what the Conservatives claim. Like the notion that he compared the flag to a beer label. Notice they never actually provide a direct quotation for that one? The reality is he wrote about how a corporation can co-opt national symbols and patriotism for a product and no one seems to care.

    Whereas context of a Harper quotation makes Harper look worse and the meaning even darker. Like calling our great country a "second tier nation" and "content to be a second tier nation". He was describing how he sees his own country to a bunch of far right Republicans. But does anyone, including anyone in the media call him on this? Or saying that, for him, it is only "secondary" whether there is "one, two or ten national governments"? No. Free pass to Harper for that.

  79. You are kidding, right, johnny? The Cons have spent literally millions of $ taking snippets out of Iggy context and twisting them into wholly different meanings.

    The problem for the Cons is that real context invariably makes Iggy look better, smarter and the meaning usually the complete opposite of what the Conservatives claim. Like the notion that he compared the flag to a beer label. Notice they never actually provide a direct quotation for that one? The reality is he wrote about how a corporation can co-opt national symbols and patriotism for a product and no one seems to care.

    Whereas context of a Harper quotation makes Harper look worse and the meaning even darker. Like calling our great country a "second tier nation" and "content to be a second tier nation". He was describing how he sees his own country to a bunch of far right Republicans. But does anyone, including anyone in the media call him on this? Or saying that, for him, it is only "secondary" whether there is "one, two or ten national governments"? No. Free pass to Harper for that.

    • He was describing how he sees his own country to a bunch of far right Republicans.

      Sure, fine. And what shall we say Ignatieff was doing when describing how "disgusting" he finds Canada for being more interested in "b!tching about their rich neighbors to the south"? Or for trading on it's "entirely bogus peacekeeping reputation"? How was he "seeing his country" then?

      I know you are a Liberal, but much as Wherry and others would like to pretend otherwise, you can't have it both ways. If you want to catch Harper "insulting" Canada out of context like you did above, and like the Liberals tried before, don't come crying when it's done back to you. The fact that you are here using Harper out of context, again, while criticizing the Conservatives for taking Ignatieff out of context…I don't even know whether to laugh or cry. This entire thread just boggles my mind with how stacked you Liberals think the deck needs to be in your favour.

      • I'm pretty sure the point was that the out of context snippet game was the Conservatives' long before the Liberals, so why is it such a crime now that the Liberals are playing too?

  80. The beer label quote which is likely to be the most offensive of his quotes is actually used in context by the Tories. Surprising…

  81. The beer label quote which is likely to be the most offensive of his quotes is actually used in context by the Tories. Surprising…

  82. They are deliberately trying to create a false impression – that Liberals will be taxing Canadian families

    The ads don't even mention families. Either you're talking about the wrong ad, or you're confused about something.

  83. Wow.

    So cap and trade would cause you to throw all that away eh?

  84. I'm going to steal from Jonathan McKinnel, below, as he says it better than I apparently have been doing:

    "without the context, you don't know WHY they're doing or WHICH Taxes specifically they are raising (i.e. Corporate)

    This leads people to believe that the liberals are raising taxes for everyone (Individuals) which is not the case, in fact they're offering the general public more money for things that they might need. "

    The unedited quote was explicitly about corporate taxes, but you can't tell that from the snippet; the ad is aimed at everyday citizens, not corporations. Whose taxes will the listener assume are being raised? You and me. The everyday citizens. Families. False impression created.

  85. He was describing how he sees his own country to a bunch of far right Republicans.

    Sure, fine. And what shall we say Ignatieff was doing when describing how "disgusting" he finds Canada for being more interested in "b!tching about their rich neighbors to the south"? Or for trading on it's "entirely bogus peacekeeping reputation"? How was he "seeing his country" then?

    I know you are a Liberal, but much as Wherry and others would like to pretend otherwise, you can't have it both ways. If you want to catch Harper "insulting" Canada out of context like you did above, and like the Liberals tried before, don't come crying when it's done back to you. The fact that you are here using Harper out of context, again, while criticizing the Conservatives for taking Ignatieff out of context…I don't even know whether to laugh or cry. This entire thread just boggles my mind with how stacked you Liberals think the deck needs to be in your favour.

  86. After my last reply, I decided to do an informal poll of my coworkers. I sent them the link to the ad, and asked them one question: "Who is being taxed?" The ones who responded all said "everyone".

    I then gave them the link to the full quote and asked "do you think the CPC ad contitutes a lie, or something less than a lie?" They all replied "A lie."

    It's a small sample and a very unscientific poll but it certainly supports my own response – that an average person watching the ad will think the out-of-context quote means something other than what was said. By the definition I quoted earlier, that makes the ad a ie. And again, my poll supports that that's how average people will define it as well, if they also see the full clip.

  87. if they were serious about it, i would not vote, or vote for a fringe party of some sort.

  88. if they were serious about it, i would not vote, or vote for a fringe party of some sort.

  89. The Conserative Party of Canada is fcking pathetic.

    That is all.

  90. The Conserative Party of Canada is fcking pathetic.

    That is all.

  91. Thanks for posting those old links relevant to Conservative attack ads. I had not paid any attention previously because I always operate under the assumption that there is nothing worthwhile to learn from any political party ad (even a party I might vote for) and I have never been proven wrong. However, it was of some interest reading the article from which the CPC beer label comment came. It served as a reminder that often, in addition to political ads not containing anything worth learning, they can actually contain brain-cell-killing stupidity.

  92. Thanks for posting those old links relevant to Conservative attack ads. I had not paid any attention previously because I always operate under the assumption that there is nothing worthwhile to learn from any political party ad (even a party I might vote for) and I have never been proven wrong. However, it was of some interest reading the article from which the CPC beer label comment came. It served as a reminder that often, in addition to political ads not containing anything worth learning, they can actually contain brain-cell-killing stupidity.

  93. There's nothing misleading. Are they raising taxes? Yes. It's 100% true. Just to prove that they're not misleading anyone, they showed the guy saying it himself. There's nothing the slightest bit misleading.

    The sky is blue. That's not a misleading statement. Oh, but Andrew, you think that's misleading because I didn't say that it's because blue light has a longer wavelength than the rest of the visible spectrum. How could I be so callous to tell you the sky is blue without telling you why! So malicious! So wrong! It's not even the same shade of blue everywhere! And I said nothing about that! It's really many shades of blue! My god, what a misleading fellow I am.

  94. So, do you think it's misleading for the Liberals to be criticizing the corporate tax cuts, when only 6 Liberal MPs in the House of commons voted against them?

    How about the fact that the Liberal leader at the time claimed he would have lowered them even more? He said this just before these very same tax cuts (yes, the very same corporate tax cuts) were enacted? He said they didn't go low enough. These very same Liberals are saying now that the tax cuts are irresponsible. The very same tax cuts.

    Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has pledged to further reduce the Canadian federal corporate tax rate to better compete with other countries and strengthen Canada's economic sovereignty. …Dion told the Economic Club of Toronto…“A lower corporate tax rate is a powerful weapon in the federal government's arsenal to generate more investment, higher living standards and better jobs.” …The previous Liberal government reduced the federal corporate tax rate to 19% from 28%. Dion said he would go deeper than the Conservatives have done with their reduction to 18.5% in 2011. …“If you lower the corporate tax rate, you lower the cost of capital for Canadian companies. Therefore, these companies are induced to spend more on capital equipment. As for foreign investment, we need a big hook to snare investment, including Canadian investment, that might otherwise go south of the border. Finally, it would strengthen Canadian companies against foreign takeover," Dion concluded.

    Do you think it's a little misleading for these very same Liberals to be claiming that the Conservative tax cuts go too low when these very same Liberals were claiming at the time they were enacted that they did not go low enough?

  95. I'm pretty sure the point was that the out of context snippet game was the Conservatives' long before the Liberals, so why is it such a crime now that the Liberals are playing too?

  96. Dion also had a genius carbon tax plan, glad you agree with that too.

  97. I support corporate tax cuts in general. I don't think there is a gulf of difference between 18% or 15% or 14% or whatever.

    I think you're being a bit disingenuous about the Green Shift. The whole idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax is that you cut other taxes to offset the economic impact. So, I don't see why it's inconsistent. Dion wasn't just arguing to cut the corporate rate to 14%, but to do that WHILE setting a carbon tax of $40/tonne. The Green Shift was one of the best tax reform packages we've seen at the federal level in a long time. Our of public debate consisted of totally distorted claims about its economic impact on the economy (go read some serious analysis–carbon taxes can be very benign, we already have a partial one in the form of fuel excise) and prices and insincere complaints about how complicated it was and how deary me, how could we ever begin to fathom it.

    The Liberals here in 2011 aren't saying that corporate tax cuts are a bad thing. They're saying that it's a matter of priorities. Harper is suggesting families wait for his bonanza of goodies for five years while corporations get a cut now, Iggy is suggesting corporations wait until the budget is balanced and families get the goodies now. Make of that what you will. I'd rather they use an increase in the GST back to 6% (which would cover their platform's cost), but that's politically difficult to sell.

    I think it's also worth noting that most of Harper's basket of goodies is going to go to wealthier families, ie those with family incomes around $100k-$150k+ between income splitting and the TFSA increase. Iggy's seem a bit more widely dispersed across the middle class. I think this is a strategy of playing to bases. Harper is promising big changes for a small swing demographic.

  98. We were in surplus back then, for one. Today, every dollar of those cuts is borrowed. More pragmatically, the Liberals were quaking in their boots back in 2007 and weren't interested in triggering an election.

    All that said, the corporate tax reduction is the single best policy Harper has introduced. Props for that. We're already most of the way there, and I'm not sure the difference between 18% and 15% will make a massive difference. We're moving towards cutting rates in half, and that should already have a significant impact. I'm okay with waiting a few years to see some results, and the budget is balanced, before we further cut corporate taxes.

    After all, what is magic about the number 15%? Is that the one best rate for corporate taxes? Why not 10%? I think it's entirely okay to see what results we get from the cuts so far.

  99. Well, whether or not you have a point about corporate taxes, carbon taxes and GST taxes and all that other stuff (interesting, Liberals are campaigning now that the former two should be higher, and in 2006 campaigned that the GST should be higher)…

    I do think it's misleading to say lowering corporate taxes is a good idea, and then the next day when someone else has lowered corporate taxes, you change your tune and criticize the lower corporate rate, saying you want to raise them back to where they were. Then you have the gall to complain that someone is repeating that you want to raise them back to where they were. God forbid people should know about this flip-flop! The nerve!

    I think the whole thing could not possibly be more misleading.

Sign in to comment.