Ad Watch: Attacking Jack
Over the past week, the Liberals launched a pair of attack ads going after the NDP (and a new positive spot). I present the second here, asking for your comments and ratings.
Personally, I'm not so sure bringing up 2005 will do much for voters - it was 6 years ago, and I fail to grasp how the NDP/CPC defeating Martin is any different from the NDP/LPC defeating Harper. But I do love the "Jack up your taxes" line.
Also out today is a new NDP ad staring Jack Layton and average Canadians. It's a "close the sale" ad, and it's a good one.
You can rate other campaign ads here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Personally, I'm not so sure bringing up 2005 will do much for voters - it was 6 years ago, and I fail to grasp how the NDP/CPC defeating Martin is any different from the NDP/LPC defeating Harper. But I do love the "Jack up your taxes" line.
Also out today is a new NDP ad staring Jack Layton and average Canadians. It's a "close the sale" ad, and it's a good one.
You can rate other campaign ads here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Labels: Ads
posted by calgarygrit at
9:30 p.m.
29 Comments:
Blaming the NDP for stopping childcare is probably the most laughable part of this advertisement.
Every Canadian with a child between 6 and 30 remembers the Liberals promised childcare when their children could have actually used it, but failed to deliver it during more than a decade of majority government.
By
Anonymous, at 9:53 p.m.
Yeah, but they actually had a plan in 2005 -- the provinces signed on and the money was allocated for it -- that the Conservatives scrapped when thy came into power. The Conservative plan -- the monthly allowance -- actually costs more and creates no childcare spaces.
By
sharonapple88, at 9:58 p.m.
The Liberal message to the left has historically been, "don't vote for the NDP; they can't win." It has been a very successful message and has really suppressed the Dipper vote. I have serious doubts regarding the wisdom of this late message switch. It could really backfire to suddenly start telling people, "don't vote for the NDP; they might win."
By
Robin, at 10:09 p.m.
I am left of the NDP and certainly have no faith in the Liberals whatsoever. I was critical of the NDP at the time because if Martin had survived for a year longer, it would have been almost impossible for the Cons to overturn national childcare.
However, the Liberals are barking up the wrong tree because practically no progressives are going to buy the Liberals as more trustworthy on a progressive issue such as childcare. And no voter like myself, for whom childcare is important and who was critical of the NDP at the time is going suddenly vote Liberal. It is just a waste of effort in my opinion and the Liberals' desperation is just going to drive more voters to the NDP.
By
Kirbycairo, at 10:11 p.m.
Wow that NDP Ad is fantastic! Best ad of the campaign.
By
MPAVictoria, at 10:31 p.m.
The NDP ad is good. I haven't been a big NDP fan, but I do think it is a good ad.
By
Anonymous, at 10:39 p.m.
Decent Liberal ad. If they aren't able to pick it up in the next few days I'm likely going to have to vote Tory to stop Layton. The prospect of the NDP driving government and the economy truly scares me.
By
Anonymous, at 10:45 p.m.
What a bizarre thought . . . handing Harper a majority so the Libs or NDP won't have a minority.
I'm finding it hard to believe you were ever going to do anything but vote conservative.
By
Anonymous, at 11:00 p.m.
"The Conservative plan -- the monthly allowance -- actually costs more and creates no childcare spaces."
Yet magically the Liberals were going to create universal childcare for everyone for half the cost. Thank you for making anonyomous' point about how serious Liberals actually were on childcare. Stephen Harper is more likely to meet our Kyoto targets than the Liberals are to create universal childcare.
By
Layton for Coalition PM, at 11:12 p.m.
This Liberal ad is good. It's also what my dad used to call "TL-squared" - Too Little, Too Late. Today's Rae/Dosanjh tag-team smacks of "Don't vote for the NDP, if anyone knows how badly they can screw up, it's us!" - not a great message, and looks pretty desperate to boot.
The ground is shifting so fast that people are not even talking about a race for second anymore - pundits are actually starting to speculate about whether the NDP could catch up with the Tories. According to Angus Reid, the Dippers are only 5 points back of Harpo, which is way closer than the Grits ever got during the campaign.
I still think Harper wins this fairly comfortably (no majority though), but the shift to the NDP is showing no signs of abating and the prospect of Jack and Olivia moving into Stornoway is looking like more and more of a possibility.
By
Anonymous, at 11:18 p.m.
@11:00 Don't dismiss the premise. Half the Liberal party especially in Ontario and B.C are Blue Liberals who would prefer a Tory majority to a NDP led minority any day.
By
Andre, at 11:24 p.m.
Yes Anonymous, it is indeed too little to late. I really don't know if any of this will sustain until the election but I think it is finally time for Canadians to look to an option other than the corporate one represented by the Liberals and the Conservatives. It is time for a change, and a meaningful one. I think that the NDP in a minority government would be pretty tough for them given the current climate but a few years as the official opposition and they could be ready to take a real stab at government.
Still, vote strategically folks, let's get rid of Harper now before it is too late.
By
Kirbycairo, at 11:25 p.m.
Problem I see with the NDP ad is once again - Vote For Jack. A one man show. Without Jack, then what.
On the upside, if the NDP does form the opposition that gives the Libs a chance to sit back and say no all they want.
Let's see how left Jack will be in order to save his seat location in the house.
By
Anonymous, at 11:43 p.m.
RE: the NDP ad
I'm going to get clobbered for saying this, but did it appear to anyone else that the ad was focused on the boobs of the woman in the gray clingy blouse? Was it subliminal - to emphasize her 'maternalness' to female voters (notice the kids drawing on the wall) - or was it overt to stress her MILF-ness for males voters?
By
Anonymous, at 11:54 p.m.
Best quote of the election goes to Laurie Hawn today on CBC.
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1898748709
at 11:50 mark
Angrily to Paul Dewar: "You've had your two seconds of stupidity. Now let me do mine" oops!
By
Anonymous, at 12:00 a.m.
"On the upside, if the NDP does form the opposition that gives the Libs a chance to sit back and say no all they want."
Oh please. The Liberals will be a leaderless party before Peter Mansbridge finishes announcing that the polls have closed in central Canada.
They will spend the next year propping up a minority Harper government no questions asked while pretending they are really the choice for progressive Canadians. During this whole time they will be obsessed over who should be the next leader of Canada's Natural Governing Party instead of finding out what that party should actually stand for and will be totally shocked when they get thoroughly rejected by Canadians for the fourth election in a row.
By
Conservative-Liberal Coalition, at 12:01 a.m.
C-L coalition has a crystal ball and can see clearly into the future. What are next weeks lottery numbers, oh great one!
By
Anonymous, at 12:16 a.m.
1. It strains credulity to say Harper and Layton are "two sides of the same coin". What do they have in common... apart from being far more popular than Ignatieff? If anything, the comparison makes Layton look more centrist.
2. Isn't it contradictory to attack the NDP/Conservative leaders as career politicians in one ad, while attacking NDP candidates for a lack of experience in the other.
3. If voting no confidence in Martin makes the NDP and Conservatives "two sides of the same coin", what does that say about the Liberals, NDP and Bloc in this election?
4. If Martin's childcare plan was so awesome, why isn't it in Michael Ignatieff's platform this time around?
5. Considering that the only people for whom the gun registry is a salient issue are gun-owners, is NDP opposition to the gun registry really the best issue to highlight? Also, what is so "unprincipled" about letting your MPs vote their conscience, while trying to convince them as leader?
This ad is a great metaphor for the Liberal campaign - good production values, wrong message. Just as the Liberals should have had a message on the economy (would it kill them to give a single "are you better off than you were five years ago"), that is the best attack on the NDP.
Screw Bob Rae's feelings, and run the real attack ad the NDP is asking for.
1990.
Ontario.
-11% unemployment.
-0.7% /annum economic growth
-Deficit of 4.4% of GDP (ironically Rae's overspending broke the bank so much that he had to initiate cuts).
-Welfare recipients go from 600,000 -> almost 1,400,000
By
hosertohoosier, at 12:50 a.m.
Such a delicious irony that the Liberals cannot attack two of the most glaring examples of NDP mismanagement because the leaders of those governments now sit on the Liberal front bench. Another brilliant strategic move by The Board.
By
ghoris, at 2:17 a.m.
"I was critical of the NDP at the time because if Martin had survived for a year longer, it would have been almost impossible for the Cons to overturn national childcare."
you conveniently forget that Paul Martin had promised to call an election one week after the Gomery report was released. This would be in January 2006. So, there was going to be an election in January 2006 anyway. The NDP vote of nonconfidence in November 2005 simply brought the election forward by 6 weeks.
Blaming the cancellation of the Dryden childcare initiative on the NDP is baseless; it's not the NDP's fault the Grits can't win an election.
By
Kevin, at 3:14 a.m.
What I find interesting is that the Ignatieff ads on Metro Morning (CBC Toronto) have gone negative this week for the fist time since the election.
By
Anonymous, at 8:53 a.m.
it's not the NDP's fault the Grits can't win an election.
Actually, it is. And that's the problem.
The NDP has stolen so may Liberal votes this election that Harper may get a majority, which is the result neither party wants.
By
Anonymous, at 3:30 p.m.
I'm not sure if stolen's the right word for it. The NDP have hammered Ignatieff and Liberals in turn allowed the focus to go entirely off of Harper this election.
By
sharonapple88, at 3:39 p.m.
Does this really need to be said Anonymous??
There may be some systemic problems in our democratic system, however, YOU CANNOT STEAL VOTES unless you are literary tampering with the ballot boxes.
We may object to a party's tactics. We may think that the system is inherently unjust and imbalanced and requires major reforms. But no one stole anything. You can only steal something that belongs to someone else, but votes don't BELONG to anyone except the voters. Though they seem to think otherwise, the Liberals don't OWN anyone's vote and are not a "natural" party of power.
The failure of the Liberal Party in this election is simply that: THEIR FAILURE. They didn't respond to the Conservatives attacks on Ignatieff at the beginning when they could properly define him. The voters once again seemed to believe that they were campaigning from the left but had been governing, and would govern in power, from the right. The Liberal Party lacked credibility from the beginning after years of supporting the Conservatives.
Right or wrong, this is how voters seem to perceive the events. No stealing, just campaigning.
Liberals need to start embracing the need for reformin the system, not just playing an electoral game every few years.
By
Kirbycairo, at 3:59 p.m.
If national childcare had gone through in 2006, we would have lacked the funds to deal with the financial crisis of 2008.
Either our economy would be in tatters, struggling to recover, or equally important spending programs would have had to suffer serious cuts.
Even if we were ALL left-wingers, the simple truth is that we can't afford to everything for everyone. Eventually some important programs get cut.
Put it this way: if we're struggling to afford health and education, how the F would you expect us to fund a national child care program too?
To even try would eventually cause a massive backlash that would sweep a REAL right-winger into power.
By
Robert Vollman, at 4:30 p.m.
Robert Vollman - what you are failing to understand is that you are just accepting the paradigm that the corporations which has, after years of neo-conservative policies and propaganda, convinced people that there is not enough money for an economy in which people matter. But it is a LIE! Instead, what has happened is that a much larger portion of society's wealth has been concentrated in the pockets of a much smaller group of people. It has happened all over the Western world as the neo-conservative and corporatist agenda has been sold to the people.
Over the past 30 the discrepancy between the richest and poorest has increased year by year and the social distribution of wealth has gotten smaller and smaller. Neo-Liberalism has used a complex formula to achieve this including a less and less fair tax system, lowing of corporate taxes, grants and low interest loans to corporations, the gradual killing of unions, the rise in cost of education, etc. The net result has been a concentration of wealth and convincing suckers like you that we can't have an economy in which people matter.
Your argument holds no water and the NDP is a simple social democratic party which seeks to reverse some of this process.
By
Kirbycairo, at 5:04 p.m.
So you're a "punish the rich" socialist? Oh yeah, there are lots of historical examples where that worked!
Dude, we already live in a country that:
- Keeps people safe
- Keeps them healthy
- Educates them
- Helps them when they're unemployed
- Takes care of their retirement.
And we're only BARELY able to do these things, and by borrowing money we don't even have.
You think we can raise their children, too? Trust me - backlash! And someone who makes Harper look like a pinko would get elected.
Can we at least agree that those five things I listed should be fully funded (and without using borrowed money) before adding more programs?
By
Robert Vollman, at 5:42 p.m.
Sorry Robert, it won't do. Nothing to do with punishing anyone. Very simple - a society has to have a fair distribution of wealth or it will whither and die. History's bloodiest and most brutal revolutions have come directly after a period in which the wealth becomes more and more concentrated in a smaller and smaller number of pockets. Furthermore, many ancient societies died because a small group of aristocrats had the vast majority of the society's wealth. Just go back and read history.
It is not about punishing the rich, that is just neo-conservative spin. It is about finding a way to ensure social and economic balance in a society. You might not like it but anything short of that will see your society wither and die. Depend on it.
By
Kirbycairo, at 6:14 p.m.
Let's assume I agree 100% with you. Let's say that I am Mr. Socialist, ok?
Now, how can we afford a national childcare program when we have to borrow heaps of money to just barely keep our other programs afloat, like health care, education, unemployment and pension?
Shouldn't even I, Mr. Socialist, worry that adding another program would leave us with insufficient money to fund the others?
Shouldn't even I, Mr. Socialist, worry that the consequences might cause people to panic, and replace me with Mr. Cut-Everything? (Cough cough Rob Ford Mike Harris cough cough)
And remember - pretend that I'm asking you as Mr. Socialist! Don't argue for socialism, let's say you've completely won that argument.
By
Robert Vollman, at 6:39 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home