Here we go again...Tory attacks ads.

[Shady]

Pic or it didn't happen.

I'll see what I can do. I'll have to import the image into paint and black out private information. And then upload the image online to a site that will host it.

[WWWTT]

You still have candidates who can't raise even close to that, is that fair?

If the NDP wanted to lead by example maybe they should have given all the candidates $500,000 to run with.

Yes I guess that there may be some that are having a hard time rasing the funds,can you provide some links?

I am flattered to hear you say that you think my opinion should be automaticly NDP policy,but thats not the case.

WWWTT

[capricorn]

IMHO, he is far and away the best choice for both positions, and frankly that's the position of a lot of liberal supporters known to me.

Rae's qualities aside, the mixed signals he's sending about a potential leadership bid is the biggest immediate problem facing the Liberals. And until leadership hopefuls come forward, who won't come forward until they know Rae's intention, we have no way of evaluating if any of them could match Rae's abilities.

Edited March 20, 2012 by capricorn

[g_bambino]

Running attack ads all the time and any time grows tiresome and stinks of propaganda. I find it distasteful and an insult to the public.

I can see these ads potentially being the top of a slippery slope. There's nothing to stop the other parties from putting their attack ads on the air; it's entirely possible we could constantly have ads from all parties attacking the leaders of the other parties on television and in our inboxes and popups and sidebars and bus shelters and whatnot; essentially we'd be in a never-ending election campaign. Campaigning takes place between the dropping of the writs by the governor general and the closing of the polls on election day. That's when political ads should be aired, and only then.

However, the most important point is quite possibly that the leader of a political party does not run the country, contrary to what Stephen Harper thinks of himself. Parliament is in charge and the leader of the party is an MP like every other member in the House.

It's not a possibility; it's completely true.

[Newfoundlander]

Yes I guess that there may be some that are having a hard time rasing the funds,can you provide some links?

I am flattered to hear you say that you think my opinion should be automaticly NDP policy,but thats not the case.

WWWTT

You never said anything about giving candidates their budget.

According to Pundits Guide Nikki Ashton and Martin Singh likely won't raise even $100,000. Mulcair's in the lead with fundraising so he's probably buying the leadership I guess.

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2012/03/money-momentum-and-mudslinging-mark-final-week-of-ndp-leadership-race/

[cybercoma]

Discriminates against the other parties that can not afford to continuously run ads? Please tell me you're not serious? There's no limit on how much money a party can raise, if parties want to run ads continuously then they should learn how to raise money.

Is it discrimination that Peggy Nash is able to run a better leadership campaign than Nikki Ashton because she raised more money?

When your benefactors are the sleaze-bag oil barons, their bankers, and the military-industrial complex, you're doing alright.

[cybercoma]

It's not a possibility; it's completely true.

Heh. I wasn't clear, but I meant that it is "quite possibly the most important point".

[Newfoundlander]

When your benefactors are the sleaze-bag oil barons, their bankers, and the military-industrial complex, you're doing alright.

What?

[WWWTT]

You never said anything about giving candidates their budget.

According to Pundits Guide Nikki Ashton and Martin Singh likely won't raise even $100,000. Mulcair's in the lead with fundraising so he's probably buying the leadership I guess.

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2012/03/money-momentum-and-mudslinging-mark-final-week-of-ndp-leadership-race/

Ya thats your opinion that you are transposing as my idea.Nice try buddy!

The NDP established the ground rules for the race and from I see its pretty fair.

Mulcair was able to raise the most money and good for him!If it helps him then thats great!He is playing the game fair so far from what I see.

Whats the rules for the government spending on campaigning before an election call?What are the monetary limits?Are there even any rules?Who makes the rules?

But really in the end the conservatives have only really attacked the liberals so why would I really care?I should care because you are making a flimsy argument that the NDP leadership policy is in some way in contradiction of my opinion according to you?Thats spun buddy.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

When your benefactors are the sleaze-bag oil barons, their bankers, and the military-industrial complex, you're doing alright.

In other words democracy has a price!

And should be sold to the highest bidder!

WWWTT

[Newfoundlander]

Ya thats your opinion that you are transposing as my idea.Nice try buddy!

The NDP established the ground rules for the race and from I see its pretty fair.

Mulcair was able to raise the most money and good for him!If it helps him then thats great!He is playing the game fair so far from what I see.

Whats the rules for the government spending on campaigning before an election call?What are the monetary limits?Are there even any rules?Who makes the rules?

But really in the end the conservatives have only really attacked the liberals so why would I really care?I should care because you are making a flimsy argument that the NDP leadership policy is in some way in contradiction of my opinion according to you?Thats spun buddy.

WWWTT

There are rules around how much money you can raise from citizens and it just so hapens the Conservatives are way better then any other party at raising money. They're not doing anything wrong by spending that money, just like the NDP didn't do anything wrong when they launched attack ads against the gun registry last year.

[cybercoma]

There are rules around how much money you can raise from citizens and it just so hapens the Conservatives are way better then any other party at raising money. They're not doing anything wrong by spending that money, just like the NDP didn't do anything wrong when they launched attack ads against the gun registry last year.

Where did anyone say the Conservatives were doing something wrong by spending money they've raised? Can you quote me someone saying that?

[Newfoundlander]

Where did anyone say the Conservatives were doing something wrong by spending money they've raised? Can you quote me someone saying that?

Well WWWTT is saying that the Conservatives are just buying democracy. Maybe I took what WWWTT said a bit out of context by saying the Conservatives are doing nothing wrong.

[CPCFTW]

Well WWWTT is saying that the Conservatives are just buying democracy. Maybe I took what WWWTT said a bit out of context by saying the Conservatives are doing nothing wrong.

Cybercoma said that conservatives should only be able to spend their money on attack ads during election campaigns. It's not fair to him that he has to watch conservative ads that distract him from these:

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/04/ttc-pays-28000-for-ads-to-push-new-rocket

[Newfoundlander]

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc should have tried to get a limit put on political advertising between elections when they had a majority in the House of Commons.

[CPCFTW]

let's face the facts, take Rae past as Premier and his down falls and put them up against Harper's and Harper get the prize for highest deficit for a Canadian leader, most unemployment...

Why would you say something that is such a blatant lie?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate

Canada's unemployment rate has frequently been higher than it was even during the worst of the "great recession" of Harper's leadership.

Or are you quoting coffee shop statistics again?

[Bryan]

Why would you say something that is such a blatant lie?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate

Canada's unemployment rate has frequently been higher than it was even during the worst of the "great recession" of Harper's leadership.

Or are you quoting coffee shop statistics again?

No kidding. We went through some really mild recessions compared to this one with significantly worse economic results. Unemployment was much higher at several points in the 80's and 90's. Taxes and interest rates were substantially higher too.

I think what Topaz might have gotten mixed up is that the Conservatives presided over the LOWEST unemployment rate in our history.

Why would you say something that is such a blatant lie?

That really is starting to get old, isn't it? I mean, I get it that lefties don't like the Conservatives, and I get it that politics is going to invite debate. But what is the deal with so many of the left-wing posters on this site thinking that just posting outright lies is a legitimate form of debate?

[cybercoma]

The problem with Canada's unemployment rate is that the national number is skewed. The regional numbers are appalling and when you break it up by age groups it look even worse. Moreover, the number of people that have given up looking for work is never considered. As that drops, the overall unemployment rate drops.

Here's the province-by-province breakdown for 2011:

National: 7.4% (ages 15-24: 14.7%)

Newfoundland: 12.7%

Nova Scotia: 8.8%

Prince Edward Island: 11.3%

New Brunswick: 10.1%

Quebec: 7.8%

Ontario: 7.8%

Manitoba: 5.4%

Saskatchewan: 5.0%

Alberta: 5.5%

British Columbia: 7.5%

Canada's unemployment rate is deceptive, as the lowest rate is 5.0% while the highest is 12.7%. That's only looking at it by province. You need to also factor in things like age. The 15-24 demographic is at 14.7% and those are only people in that age rage that are actively seeking work and can't find any. Not only is age a consideration but the number of people that have given up looking for work are not counted. This has actually caused a slight decrease in the unemployment rate in the last couple of months. None of this takes into consideration people working part-time that would rather be working full-time nor the amount of compensation (wages + benefits) labour gets. If you want a true picture of employment in Canada you need to factor all of these things together.

Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma

[Newfoundlander]

The problem with Canada's unemployment rate is that the national number is skewed. The regional numbers are appalling and when you break it up by age groups it look even worse. Moreover, the number of people that have given up looking for work is never considered. As that drops, the overall unemployment rate drops.

Here's the province-by-province breakdown for 2011:

National: 7.4% (ages 15-24: 14.7%)

Newfoundland: 12.7%

Nova Scotia: 8.8%

Prince Edward Island: 11.3%

New Brunswick: 10.1%

Quebec: 7.8%

Ontario: 7.8%

Manitoba: 5.4%

Saskatchewan: 5.0%

Alberta: 5.5%

British Columbia: 7.5%

Canada's unemployment rate is deceptive, as the lowest rate is 5.0% while the highest is 12.7%. That's only looking at it by province. You need to also factor in things like age. The 15-24 demographic is at 14.7% and those are only people in that age rage that are actively seeking work and can't find any. Not only is age a consideration but the number of people that have given up looking for work are not counted. This has actually caused a slight decrease in the unemployment rate in the last couple of months. None of this takes into consideration people working part-time that would rather be working full-time nor the amount of compensation (wages + benefits) labour gets. If you want a true picture of employment in Canada you need to factor all of these things together.

Those things are always a factor, it doesn't change the fact that our unemployment rate stayed on the lower side during the recession compared to other places in the world and compared to the 1990's.

[g_bambino]

Cybercoma said that conservatives should only be able to spend their money on attack ads during election campaigns. It's not fair to him that he has to watch conservative ads that distract him from these:

Where did he say that, exactly?

[Smallc]

The problem with Canada's unemployment rate is that the national number is skewed.

How is it skewed? It's an average of the numbers you presented weighted for population. The rate is also calculated for the major cities.

[WWWTT]

There are rules around how much money you can raise from citizens and it just so hapens the Conservatives are way better then any other party at raising money. They're not doing anything wrong by spending that money, just like the NDP didn't do anything wrong when they launched attack ads against the gun registry last year.

So far I am in agreement with this comment.Except with how much can be spent!

As far as I am concerned democracy should not be up for the highest bidder.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

No kidding. We went through some really mild recessions compared to this one with significantly worse economic results. Unemployment was much higher at several points in the 80's and 90's. Taxes and interest rates were substantially higher too.

I think what Topaz might have gotten mixed up is that the Conservatives presided over the LOWEST unemployment rate in our history.

Factually incorrect statements.

Topaz clearly stated "the number of unemployed"!

This is not mathematically the same as the unemployment rate.The unemployment rate is always listed as a %(percentage).Wereas the number of unemployed is listed as a numerical value or number.

However you are welcome to prove him wrong with a link?

Aswell the conservatives have only bein around since 2003/2004 and were elected to a minority government in 2006.Can you provide links stating the lowest unemployment rates in Canadian history falling within this time frame?

WWWTT

[Newfoundlander]

So far I am in agreement with this comment.Except with how much can be spent!

As far as I am concerned democracy should not be up for the highest bidder.

WWWTT

There's no limit on how much can be spent between elections, to my knowledge, and I've heard no party advocate for there to be a limit.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Newfoundlander

[madmax]

No kidding. We went through some really mild recessions compared to this one with significantly worse economic results. Unemployment was much higher at several points in the 80's and 90's. Taxes and interest rates were substantially higher too.

I think what Topaz might have gotten mixed up is that the Conservatives presided over the LOWEST unemployment rate in our history.

That really is starting to get old, isn't it? I mean, I get it that lefties don't like the Conservatives, and I get it that politics is going to invite debate. But what is the deal with so many of the left-wing posters on this site thinking that just posting outright lies is a legitimate form of debate?

The Unemployment rate is measured very differently today then in the decades previous.

Previous recessions may show "higher" rates of unemployment however.. the majority of the stats are generated from EI and they do not have a strong handle on those trying to re enter the workforce vs giving up.

Unemployment for example in the 80s.. companies laid off they didn't leave... and when the hardships ended the ramped back up.. their HR staff would report to Stats their employment rates and number of hires.. often a simple survey.

Ironically, today, when a company closes the survey day disappears.

Therefore the government relies on EI figures.. and these figures will show that the numbers are lower because...

1) its more difficult to collect EI then in the previous decades.. fewer qualify

2) EI last a shorter period.

3) EI pays Less...

that is why during even the highest levels of unemployment EI ran a MASSIVE $56Billion Dollar surplus.

That monies was diverted to corporate tax cuts and invested offshore.

Its why EI today makes choices to cut Student Employment Centres..

Brilliant...

I can't say much good about this governments role during the recession..

They are great marketers of manure. The good side of that is that it better to have a positive face then a negative one.

Which.. is why the Tories are queuing up their attack adds...

Obviously when we compare the 90s recession, that self inflicted wound came courtesy of Brian Mulroney.