30

‘Not so great’


 

The latest spot from the NDP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo57xRy_8oU&feature=feedu


 

‘Not so great’

  1. A pretty good ad. It sticks to one issue and only attacks one party. Simple and to the point. No dark dramatization or stupidity.

    • Well, they did lie about the "fraud charges", which is what the ad is focused on.

      The NDP could have talked about former Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne, who was recently convicted of actual fraud charges and who subsequently resigned from the senate.

      Instead, the NDP chose to base the whole ad on a demonstrable lie.

      • I assumed they were talking about the election fraud charges of the in-and-out scheme – exceeding spending limits and receiving unwarranted public funds through fraudulent means. Isn't this what they are referring to?

        • They're not "election fraud" charges. The charges don't relate to fraud in any way.

          They're regulatory charges under Section 431 of the Canada Elections Act.

        • The Conservatives are still trying to spin the charges as a minor thing, like a speeding ticket, Catherine. You are right in your appraisal though, and so are the NDP in theirs. If not Harper would be suing them right now.

          • They're summary charges with a max. $2,500 fine, just like a speeding ticket. The risk of jail time is so remote that it's purely theoretical (also like a speeding ticket).

            Actual "fraud" would involve criminal charges. The prosecutors themselves have been careful to point out that "these are NOT criminal charges." Instead, they are regulatory charges under the Elections Canada Act.

          • Those prosecutors you are trying to hide behind characterized it as "serious illegal activity," Crit. Not quite the minor transgression you are making it out to be.

            A crime prosecuted under the elections act is still a crime too, no matter how you sing and dance.

            And since evidence in the public sphere points to falsified invoices and claiming rebates under false pretence, fraud is certainly implied.

  2. NDP ads are my personal favourite because they capture the essence of Stephen Harper, puppet of the oil lobby. ;-)

  3. They always do that side shot of Layton…every ad so far.

    I'm not sure why.

    It looks like he's lost the camera.

    • It shows his left side, which should be his best side, no?

      • LOL true, dat!

    • It's the lighting technique. It works well, suits his face and shape of his head. Good to see they have some capable people on the ad side of things.

      I actually have more trouble with the lighting the Liberals use on Ignatieff…it would be better suited to a fashion model. They should move the main to one side a bit more, and tone down the fill.

      I don't want to get into Harper's lighting crew, other than to say there really isn't much creativity in that party.

      • I have no quibble with the lighting….it's just that it looks like he loses the camera….he should turn to face it.

  4. If I was doped up on prescription meds like jack, I wouldn't be able to find the camera either, nice how they got him to stop bouncing and sit down though..

    • CANCER IS LOLZ.

    • Were you paid for that comment Realistic?

  5. Good ad…maybe it might have been a tad too audacious to put a little crown on Steve's head though?

  6. "Fraud charges"? Can the NDP be sued by Finley and Gerstein for lying about this?

  7. I'm pretty sure it's not kosher to publicly claim that someone is facing fraud charges when they're really not.

    Btw, I've been following you on Twitter!

    • "Btw, I've been following you on Twitter!"
      Excellent, you'll be buying a Supersuckers album soon, I take it.

      "I'm pretty sure it's not kosher to publicly claim that someone is facing fraud charges when they're really not. "
      They are facing fraud charges though. Common usage would include charges related to fraud in that, and the charges they are facing could definitely be described that way.

    • The newspapers keep calling it "election fraud." They're pretty public.

      • Do you have examples?

        • Just google Harper and "election fraud" under news. Here's a couple

          Edmonton Journal: In 2009, Togneri, parliamentary affairs director for Christian Paradis, then minister of public works, allegedly blocked access-to-information requests. The federal information commissioner investigated the case, and the matter was referred to the RCMP. It was a big story, linked to the Bev Oda scandal, the in-and-out election fraud charges, the Bruce Carson illegal lobbying allegations and, finally, that pesky "contempt of Parliament" that brought the government down last week.

          Or from something more international, Americas Quarterly: But his government now faces scandals. Four Tory officials, including two sitting senators, face election fraud charges. Harper's former close advisor, Bruce Carson, has a criminal record for fraud. Harper says he would never hired him had he known the full extent of his criminal record but he did know Carson had been in trouble with the law.

          • The Edmonton Journal quote is from an opinion column, The America Quarterly policy journal quote is simply inaccurate reporting.

            The "common usage" defence is pure BS. The summary charges don't relate to fraud in any way, and the prosecutor has stressed that "these are not criminal charges".

            "Election fraud" references are pure partisan mud-slinging.

          • I just picked out a couple. As I said, just google and dozens will come up. Not sure what point you are trying to make as Gerstein is charged with submitting a false claim which was meant to exceed allowed spending and recover more public funds with the intent of winning the election helped by fraud. What kind of fraud can possibly be worse than fraud meant to swindle millions of Canadians out of a fair democracy? And, as I said this came from the top down in Harper's campaign and appears to have almost been forced (actually from earlier statements, can probably remove the word almost) on candidates. Is this the kind of behavior you want to defend?

  8. And, I should add, what makes it particularly awful is that this wasn't a local scheme cooked up by a few crooked people. It came from the very top and pervaded the entire party, with only a small number of candidates refusing to participate. That is the worst kind of fraud of all – where people in position of power exert pressure on others to break the law.

  9. That trumpety sound at the beginning of these ads…where have I heard that before? Is it something the computer used to make when logging on? Winning a game of solitaire? It's driving me crazy!

    • Then step outside. The fresh air will do you some much needed good.

    • It's not nearly as annoying as the American-sounding voiceover actor.

Sign in to comment.