Liberal Attack Ads

[Dave_ON]

It's still far too early to predict what shape they will take but I think that Ignatieff has given us a fairly good impression so far. He reiterates it in this rather fluffy CBC article.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/24/...convention.html

Two quotes stood out.

Let's be clear how we carry the attack, because I will not attack Mr. Harper's patriotism. I will not attack his character. I will not attack his family. I will attack his record, and God knows, there's enough to work on

The prime minister of Canada has only one job, and that is to unite Canadians and never divide them, and that, Mr. Harper does not understand.

If this is the tone that the Liberal attack ads take it will be quite a contrast to the CPC's.

My question is how effective will this be? Attacking the Liberal record in government has been a corner stone of the CPC's election strategy. In the next election likely it will be a good 4-5 years since the Liberals were last in power, clearly they will need a change of strategy. The Liberals are being rather tight lipped about their policy platform so it appears that the CPC will have little else to attack.

It's not my intent to discuss the ethics of attack ads, they are here to stay and have proven quite effective for both parties. My general question to all of you is do you think that one of these two methods will be more effective than the other? Will the unity card win out over Ignatieff's absence? Is unity really at the forefront of the minds of the Canadians? Do Canadians really care that Ignatieff has been absent for the better part of three decades?

[Alta4ever]

It's still far too early to predict what shape they will take but I think that Ignatieff has given us a fairly good impression so far. He reiterates it in this rather fluffy CBC article.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/24/...convention.html

Two quotes stood out.

If this is the tone that the Liberal attack ads take it will be quite a contrast to the CPC's.

My question is how effective will this be? Attacking the Liberal record in government has been a corner stone of the CPC's election strategy. In the next election likely it will be a good 4-5 years since the Liberals were last in power, clearly they will need a change of strategy. The Liberals are being rather tight lipped about their policy platform so it appears that the CPC will have little else to attack.

It's not my intent to discuss the ethics of attack ads, they are here to stay and have proven quite effective for both parties. My general question to all of you is do you think that one of these two methods will be more effective than the other? Will the unity card win out over Ignatieff's absence? Is unity really at the forefront of the minds of the Canadians? Do Canadians really care that Ignatieff has been absent for the better part of three decades?

An Macleans poll showed that 67% fo pleople cared. 50% would not vote liberal because of it, 17% would vote liberal anyway, and 33% didn't care.

So yes people care the Ignatieff had lived out of Canada for most of his life.

[Dave_ON]

An Macleans poll showed that 67% fo pleople cared. 50% would not vote liberal because of it, 17% would vote liberal anyway, and 33% didn't care.

So yes people care the Ignatieff had lived out of Canada for most of his life.

could you provide a link please? According to this Ipsos Reid poll featured in the Ottawa Citizen 6 out of 10 Canadians don't care.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp/G...5148/story.html

[Bryan]

Attacking the Liberal record in government has been a corner stone of the CPC's election strategy. In the next election likely it will be a good 4-5 years since the Liberals were last in power, clearly they will need a change of strategy.

The problem for Ignatieff is he's making attacking the Liberal record front and centre. His demands on EI reform conveniently leave out the fact that it was the Liberals who enacted the EI system we have, and that they did so when unemployment was much higher than it is now, and that they used the money from EI as a slush fund.

[Alta4ever]

could you provide a link please? According to this Ipsos Reid poll featured in the Ottawa Citizen 6 out of 10 Canadians don't care.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp/G...5148/story.html

Wow they left the poll open over the week and my how it has changed.

http://www2.macleans.ca/macleans-poll/

[Dave_ON]

The problem for Ignatieff is he's making attacking the Liberal record front and centre. His demands on EI reform conveniently leave out the fact that it was the Liberals who enacted the EI system we have, and that they did so when unemployment was much higher than it is now, and that they used the money from EI as a slush fund.

You're quite correct on all counts, but voters generally don't have a memory that is that long. They won't recall who was in power when the EI system was made the way it is. What they will recall is that the CPC didn't help them when they lost their jobs and the Liberals were pushing to change the system so that it would be of assistance. I think if the CPC wants to turn this around they need to shift gears from attacking the Liberals policy of yore and focus on how they can polish their own record. Blaming the Liberals for the country’s ills won't fly this coming election and the ad scam has long been a dead horse.

The question is, can Mr. Harper resist the temptation to attack the Liberals and focus on his own record?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You're quite correct on all counts, but voters generally don't have a memory that is that long. They won't recall who was in power when the EI system was made the way it is. What they will recall is that the CPC didn't help them when they lost their jobs and the Liberals were pushing to change the system so that it would be of assistance. I think if the CPC wants to turn this around they need to shift gears from attacking the Liberals policy of yore and focus on how they can polish their own record. Blaming the Liberals for the country’s ills won't fly this coming election and the ad scam has long been a dead horse.

The question is, can Mr. Harper resist the temptation to attack the Liberals and focus on his own record?

I will answer that for you. No he cannot and will not resist the temptation.

[Moonbox]

I'm with Jerry there and simply for practical reasons. Voters react better to sensationalism than appealing to their rationality. Unless you've got a highly charismatic leader who can endear himself to the people (Obama is an example, Harper and Ignatieff are NOT) you have to go negative and make the people dislike YOU less than the other guy.

It's a pretty sad and cynical way of doing things, but Ignatieff and Harper have the personalities of soggy cardboard, whatever the heck that means.

[Topaz]

This next election is going to be very different because there are almost 500,000 people OUT of work and they will probably be watching Question Period for the first time and then they will see what goes down in the Commons! They will see that the Tories will not change EI so people who have lived from pay cheque to pay cheque and NEED that EI cheque, without the waiting period, won't get the help THEY need from the Tories! The Tories are out of touch with the everyday people and even though it was the Libs that had changes the rules, the Libs today see the NEED and are more any willing to change the EI again for those Canadians who NEED the help. If a person working and only has 360 hours in and the company decided to layoff or leave the country, then they should get EI for a year, but not, if anyone just quits their job. As far as the Libs attacks go, maybe they should mention how many parties Harper has been a member of, this would show how he either can't make up his mind or how unstaple his judgement is.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Getting EI after 360 hours? Don't you think that is a bit low? It's only 9 weeks of work to get a year of paid vacation?! Sign me up!

Even with the current system - which doesn't pay if you quit - it is very simple to work around. You go to your boss when you want to quit and say: "I want to leave, but I want you to put on the ROE that I am laid off, okay?"... so simple, and piles of people do it.

Anyway, I think if an election is called over EI, people will be pissed off that an election is called over that. Remember that 92% of people are still working and don't want EI rates to go up.

Back to the topic at hand... I think the ads will at least cause people to find out more about Iggy... and most will assume that they must be true or they would be pulled off for being libelous. For me it doesn't change anything - I will never again vote Liberal anyway.

[Smallc]

You don't get full EI after the minimum period.

[capricorn]

"Let's be clear how we carry the attack, because I will not attack Mr. Harper's patriotism. I will not attack his character. I will not attack his family. I will attack his record,"

I think Canadians have already formed an opinion about Harper. His patriotism and character are already defined in their minds. And attacking a politician's family has long been a no-no in our politics. So I am not surprised by what Ignatieff revealed about the possible content of future Liberal attack ads.

The Liberals have no option but to aim their attack at Harper's record and policies. But the fact is, so far the government has done a fairly good job and it would take some doing to convince voters that the Conservatives are ruining the country and need to be swept into opposition. I think that is why the Liberals have raised Employment Insurance to their number one bone of contention. They sensed a vulnerability and they are exploiting it.

If this is the tone that the Liberal attack ads take it will be quite a contrast to the CPC's.

Yes, in the sense that the Conservatives are trying to define Ignatieff the person. I find the ads over the top, but the content of their ads cannot be said to be lies. The Conservative use the expression "truth ads" to bring home that point. All the facts in the ads can be verified and authenticated. Should the Liberal ads also be factual and true, there would be no contrast that I can see.

Recently, there has been much media venting of spleen over Harper daring to run a "negative attack ad," reminding Canadians that (a) Ignatieff stepped briefly outside the country ... for over 30 years ( referred to himself as an American and © returned to Canada to become prime minister.

Uh ... why is that an "attack ad?"

It's all true, unless you believe Ignatieff abandoned some high-forehead post at Harvard University because -- gosh, darn it! -- the chance to be an opposition backbencher from Toronto's Etobicoke-Lakeshore riding was just too good to pass up.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/comment/editori...558146-sun.html

The Ignatieff ads are straight out of Warren Kinsella's play book on how to demolish your opposition in an election campaign.

Further, as Liberal uber-strategist Warren Kinsella explains in his book on political campaigning appropriately titled, ahem, Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics, "oppo" short for "opposition research" is "all about scrutinizing the public record of one's adversary, and letting people know about things which he or she would prefer to keep off the front pages."

Well, surely, if it's good enough for the guy the Liberals call their "Prince of Darkness" when it comes to election strategy, the Conservatives are entitled to do to the Liberals what the Liberals will do to them.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/comment/editori...558146-sun.html

My question is how effective will this be?

Well it could be effective if Ignatieff sticks to his script of keeping the debate clean, truthful and on public policy. In the end, he is not the only player to decide the direction of an election campaign. If the past serves as example, I'm not so sure that the Liberal attack ads won't get dirty. We don't know yet what Kinsella and his war room have in store for the Conservatives whenever an election is called. And IMO, recent responses to the attack ads through youtube and the internet are second rate. I can't see this undoing whatever damage the mass media ads do to Ignatieff's image in the minds of some voters.

Attacking the Liberal record in government has been a corner stone of the CPC's election strategy.

True. Yet we can't discount the damage Conservatives caused the Liberals with their "Dion not a leader" ad campaign.

In the next election likely it will be a good 4-5 years since the Liberals were last in power, clearly they will need a change of strategy. The Liberals are being rather tight lipped about their policy platform so it appears that the CPC will have little else to attack.

This puts the Liberals in an awkward situation. They must offer voters something to convince them that the government must be changed. How can they do this without rolling out policy.

My general question to all of you is do you think that one of these two methods will be more effective than the other?

Politics is a dirty game, not far removed from mud wrestling. Ignatieff may want to take the high road. In the end the winner is the one who can most effectively cast shadows over the opponent's good points. This method is tried and true. Kinsella learned that lesson and for years put it to good use for the Liberals.

Will the unity card win out over Ignatieff's absence? Is unity really at the forefront of the minds of the Canadians? Do Canadians really care that Ignatieff has been absent for the better part of three decades?

The unity card is a non-starter. Ignatieff spoke to it early on but he's let it slip lately in his public pronouncements. I can't answer for other Canadians, but I am personally troubled by his lengthy absence and his motive for returning to Canada. But...if I felt the Conservatives absolutely had to be thrown out of office...I'd probably vote Liberal regardless.

[madmax]

The problem for Ignatieff is he's making attacking the Liberal record front and centre. His demands on EI reform conveniently leave out the fact that it was the Liberals who enacted the EI system we have, and that they did so when unemployment was much higher than it is now, and that they used the money from EI as a slush fund.

1) No the Reforms were eased in when Unemployment was lower then today. Perhaps you are missing the point. So many people are unemployed today and not counted, because EI is one of the major ways of establishing the unemployment rate. The % of those not counted today are significantly higher because many people who work and find themselves unemployed know they cannot collect EI and don't apply.

2) Yes the Liberals are the thieves of the EI system and gave away employee money to corporations. However, that was fine for the Conservatives who did the same thing.

However, Ignatieff wants to say it was a mistake, and get in and make some minor changes with the publics support. Why does he want to do this???

Because it is the hottest bandwagon he can jump on. Sure he is late to the party but that is what being an arrogant opportunist is all about.

And it works.

[Smallc]

See, the thing about all those points, is that they are a matter of perspective from a Conservative supporter. That you think the Conservatives are doing a good job and that you don't like Ignatieff and what he says is rather unremarkable and unsurprising. Whether most Canadains agree with you or not is what will really matter. According to polls, they don't agree with you right now. Whether or not they will on election day is another matter.

[madmax]

Getting EI after 360 hours? Don't you think that is a bit low? It's only 9 weeks of work to get a year of paid vacation?! Sign me up!

Even with the current system - which doesn't pay if you quit - it is very simple to work around. You go to your boss when you want to quit and say: "I want to leave, but I want you to put on the ROE that I am laid off, okay?"... so simple, and piles of people do it.

Bullshit

Is there some who have that kind of working relationship with a boss? There is always a scammer and an accomplis. I don't know of a system that doesn't have thieves attached. That includes the CPC and the LPC who stole from the same pile of money.

What you are suggesting is that people who work 960 hours go to their bosses and say, lay me off..... BULLSHIT

Regardless of the hours, there are not PILES of people asking to be laid off, and certainly not in a recession.

What I do know, is that people are having a difficult time finding enough hours of work after a 2nd or 3rd layoff after having to change jobs because of closures and getting a new job and being last in the door at a place of work often means first out.

There is a sucker born every minute.......

I don't know to many people who consider collecting EI a "vacation".

Edited May 25, 2009 by madmax

[Hydraboss]

I can't say that the company I work for has many people quitting employment right now (only one that I know of), but there has always been a fair number of people asking for lay-offs when their employment is being terminated. It gives the ex-employee the ability to join the EI Ski Team, and the company doesn't have to worry about "wrongful dismissal" or "constructive termination" headaches. Human Resources loves it.

Sign here....and off you go. Bye now!

And EI IS a vacation...especially in an economic downturn. There's very little expectation to go job hunting when there are very few jobs posted. You don't need much of a job to max out on pogy and you can sit on your ass for a year.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Maybe it is because I grew up working in the construction industry - which was very seasonal (i.e. outdoor concrete, landscaping, pool builders, home builders, etc).

Almost everyone I knew in that industry would work the hours they needed, asked to be laid off, work the rest of the season for cash (while on EI), and then have a lazy winter. I still know a lot of guys that live in SE Asia for the winter and come here every April or May to start the process again. EI is now direct deposited and the cards can be filled out online...

Edited May 25, 2009 by Chuck U. Farlie

[madmax]

I can't say that the company I work for has many people quitting employment right now (only one that I know of), but there has always been a fair number of people asking for lay-offs when their employment is being terminated.

You are suggesting they are being "laid off" as opposed to "Fired"?

It gives the ex-employee the ability to join the EI Ski Team, and the company doesn't have to worry about "wrongful dismissal" or "constructive termination" headaches. Human Resources loves it.

Like you said, no one is quitting.....

And EI IS a vacation...especially in an economic downturn. There's very little expectation to go job hunting when there are very few jobs posted. You don't need much of a job to max out on pogy and you can sit on your ass for a year.

You make some good points.

However, from what I see, those who are working are on the vacation, and can take them, whereas those on EI are hardly on any vacation, even though many feel like going to work would be considered stress leave, vs the frustration of not working.

There is EVERY expectation to go job hunting, and it is that much more important to be job hunting when few jobs are posted. Especially since, many jobs are NOT posted during a recession in order to avoid 100s and 1000s of resumes coming in for a single job. There are jobs out there and they aren't posted, and yes you are expected to search for them. Infact, the number of people I know that are in there late 50s and early 60s that have been called into EI to PRODUCE evidence of their jobs search is surprising as I like many people didn't think this is done during a recession. Infact it is done more frequently.

When You register you are sent for assessment and often that will land you in a course for 3 weeks to find out what you want to be when you grow up. Lots of Private services in the feeder tray get a piece of the action as the Unemployed are shuffled from place to place to "Upgrade" and often taught by people with less credentials, skills and abilities of those sitting in the students chair. But the trainers have the a good paying job. That is about the biggest difference.

You're also right about Pogey. It doesn't pay shit, so maxing out is easy. That doesn't pay your bills which is why people were going to work in the first place.

One thing I do see, is that many of these people act and behave such as yourself and others here on MLW until it is them. Then they realize it is no picnic. It doesn't take long for the stress and frustration to take over, and the pressure to build as the payments are missed. EI is a downward slide, and the marginally paying jobs aren't much better and the bills will still pile but it is still a more secure position to find another job.

Obviously, Its is not unusual for people to leave a sinking ship and move to a position more secure only to find yourself on another surprise torpedo victim. Do this and there is NO EI. Even though both places close and you may have 20 years in one location. I have seen EI deny someone who left his dead plant a week before the closure and get another 4 months in somewhere else. NO EI.

People do believe that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Yet for some reason, if it was all roses, people would be jumping for the EI gravy train.

However, it appears from my vantage point that people are collecting EI because their company has left Canada with the aid of the taxpayers and support of the government, often using the money diverted from EI, then punishing those people who are out of a job after decades of employment.

Considering the number of people who have been retrained through EI or have used up their claim, and find themselves with NO EI , NO JOB and NO Income....

Sitting around for a year will simply result in a person having no income or job when the claim is over.

[capricorn]

1) No the Reforms were eased in when Unemployment was lower then today.

In April 2009, the unemployment rate was 8%.

Here's a chart with the national unemployment rates for 1976-2007.

year 1996 - 9.6%

year 1997 - 9.1%

year 1998 - 8.3%

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=16

I could be wrong, but it seems the unemployment rate was higher (not by much, but higher) when the Liberals developed the revised EI rules throughout the years 1997-98.

However, Ignatieff wants to say it was a mistake, and get in and make some minor changes with the publics support. Why does he want to do this???

Because it is the hottest bandwagon he can jump on. Sure he is late to the party but that is what being an arrogant opportunist is all about.

And it works.

It's all part of the Liberal plan of showing what a "meanie" Harper is and how un-Canadian he is for not supporting the unemployed.

[Keepitsimple]

You don't get full EI after the minimum period.

Then what DO you get and how does that compare to what's offered now?......or is that just a minor detail that gets worked out after the election?

Edited May 25, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[capricorn]

See, the thing about all those points, is that they are a matter of perspective from a Conservative supporter.

Evidently.

That you think the Conservatives are doing a good job and that you don't like Ignatieff and what he says is rather unremarkable and unsurprising.

I never said I don't like Ignatieff. He has fine qualities and I'm sure he's a pleasant individual.

Whether most Canadains agree with you or not is what will really matter.

You think we should halt the discussions on MLW because most Canadians wouldn't agree with our views and opinions?

According to polls, they don't agree with you right now.

That's fine by me.

[Smallc]

Then what DO you get and how does that compare to what's offered now?......or is that just a minor detail that gets worked out after the election?

Right now you don't get full EI for working the minimum number of hours. Don't you get something like 19 weeks?

[Topaz]

Getting EI after 360 hours? Don't you think that is a bit low? It's only 9 weeks of work to get a year of paid vacation?! Sign me up!

Even with the current system - which doesn't pay if you quit - it is very simple to work around. You go to your boss when you want to quit and say: "I want to leave, but I want you to put on the ROE that I am laid off, okay?"... so simple, and piles of people do it.

Anyway, I think if an election is called over EI, people will be pissed off that an election is called over that. Remember that 92% of people are still working and don't want EI rates to go up.

Back to the topic at hand... I think the ads will at least cause people to find out more about Iggy... and most will assume that they must be true or they would be pulled off for being libelous. For me it doesn't change anything - I will never again vote Liberal anyway.

Those 360 hours are ONLY IF the company leaves you without a JOB! While getting EI that person can be trained for other jobs and the way the jobs are they better get training for a dozen jobs. What do you want them to do, live on the street and beg for food? Those 92% of people who have jobs NOW, may NEED EI sometime in the future and the rates will go up or down as the seating government sees it as they have in the past. You have to know one thing, IF, by chance the Tories turn the voters off to themselves and the Libs, then the NDP will become the government, either with a minority or a majority govt and don`t say that will never happen anything in politics IS posiible!

[Hydraboss]

You are suggesting they are being "laid off" as opposed to "Fired"?

Exactly. I don't consider it "laying someone off" when you replace him the next day (same position). The guy was fired for whatever reason, but HR ensures that the company is not at risk from a wrongful/constructive dismissal case by paying severance and having the worker sign-off that he has been laid off. The company goes about it's business, and the ex-worker gets EI. Done deal.

Like you said, no one is quitting.....

One girl. Gave notice and is moving to Vancouver to "experience life" at the end of June. Doesn't even have a place to live or a job yet. Oh, to be twenty-something and single again!

You're also right about Pogey. It doesn't pay shit, so maxing out is easy. That doesn't pay your bills which is why people were going to work in the first place.

I'm not really referring to the single income, family supporter here. I'm commenting more on the single or at least childless types that can live on $1937.00 per month ($447 per week taxable). This number is based on the $42,300.00 max income level.

One thing I do see, is that many of these people act and behave such as yourself and others here on MLW until it is them. Then they realize it is no picnic. It doesn't take long for the stress and frustration to take over, and the pressure to build as the payments are missed. EI is a downward slide, and the marginally paying jobs aren't much better and the bills will still pile but it is still a more secure position to find another job.

If I was out of work, I would find a job. Always have. Doesn't matter to me if I get a shiny new headset at Mickey D's...it's income. The problem starts when people are "too good" to work a job like that. "I can make more on pogey, and then I don't have to actually go to work".

Obviously, Its is not unusual for people to leave a sinking ship and move to a position more secure only to find yourself on another surprise torpedo victim. Do this and there is NO EI. Even though both places close and you may have 20 years in one location. I have seen EI deny someone who left his dead plant a week before the closure and get another 4 months in somewhere else. NO EI.

What???? If you have worked enough in the last 26 weeks, you qualify for EI. Doesn't matter if the company closed down, moved or turned into nuclear waste. You work - you qualify (generally speaking).

How we calculate the amount you will receive

Effective October 30, 2005, if you are living in one of the participating economic regions you may benefit from a new method of calculating your weekly benefit rate. This new method of calculation is based on the best 14 weeks of insurable earnings over the last 52 weeks of work. To know more...

If you are not living in one of the participating economic regions, the amount of your weekly benefit payment depends on your total earnings before deductions including tips and commissions, in the last 26 weeks, and is calculated in the following manner:

We look at the total earnings you have been paid in the last 26 weeks ending with your last day of work.

We take into consideration the number of weeks in which you have worked in the last 26 weeks.

We determine the unemployment rate in your region and the minimum divisor that applies at that unemployment rate.

We determine your average weekly insured earnings by dividing your total earnings in the last 26 weeks by the greater of:

a) the number of weeks you have worked in the last 26 weeks; or

the minimum divisor number.

Important: The divisor cannot be less than 14 or greater than 26.

We then multiply the result by 55% to obtain your weekly benefit. (See examples A, B and C).

EI Info

[madmax]

What???? If you have worked enough in the last 26 weeks, you qualify for EI. Doesn't matter if the company closed down, moved or turned into nuclear waste. You work - you qualify (generally speaking).

I am with you on all your comments.

And yes you are technically correct with the link... however, I just happen to be in the liquidation loop and know alot of what is going on.

However....You are not correct all the time.... I know many people who worked well over 26 weeks and DO NOT qualify. I am helping some through the appeals process. THere is some irony here as the same situation for two individuals has been handled differently. One the way you suggest and the other the way I have stated.

It has been denied, then rejected in 2 appeals processes.

You are not automatically entitled to EI if you change your job and find yourself out of work regardless of the number of hours. I know people think this is the case, as did myself, except that I continue to meet people who require help. And if you want to know who is getting hurt it is middle management.

If you are in Middle Management and do not get a golden handshake, you are at the mercy of EI for monetary support if you don't locate other work. Obviously EI is SFA compared to normal wages but it is still better then a kick in the teeth.

These people are not lying to me or making up stories. Nor are they lying on the couch.

I know quite a number that got caught up in the Ford Debacle and relocated to run the new shift to build the Flex Line only to find that the line was cut before the start of the 1st official shift.

Thus they "Quit" their job and unfortuneately the new job didn't materialize.

Tough Luck.

Same is true for much of the middle management that jumps when the ship is going down. A neat trick is to lure management into your plant or operation that is going to be liquidated. EI doesn't pay you if you change your job..... although you can appeal and be successful. So far I have seen this take as long as 6 months and no less then 4 months.

EI being dispenced has creaped up to 12 weeks.

This is hardly a picnic.

Same goes for if you collect EI and do land yourself another decent job. You are paying virtually all that money back so it cost the government very little to cover your butt for a few months, compared to what you have paid into it.

Severance... No trips, don't get on a plane and if you take severance and then claim EI, you will be labelled with Fraud if you took a trip while collecting your severance. Increase you time without EI and declare yourself unavailable for work.

Then you get lots more attention