Third Party Spending in Ontario Election: View from the Other Side

[Segnosaur]

Ok, many (or most) people are familiar with the issues around SuperPACs in the U.S., and how wealthy people and corporations (for example the Koch brothers) are spending millions on political groups in attempts to influence elections.

Well, here in Canada we have a situation which is similar, but opposite... Federally, there are limits on how much 3rd parties are allowed to spend. However, some provinces (including Ontario) have no such limits. However, rather than the wealthy spending their money to influence an election, here it is the political left that are spending the money....

From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...ng-tripled-in-last-ontario-election-1.1405598
...union-backed groups spent more than $6 million in advertising in the 2011 Ontario election — three times what was spent in 2007, and more than the NDP's total campaign budget.

From: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...is-not-illegal-it-is-at-least-unprofessional/
Spending by third parties often dwarfs that of the official parties. In the Kitchener-Waterloo byelection in 2012, the teachers’ unions spent $1.5-million on anti-Hudak ads, compared with $370,00 by the Liberals and PCs combined.

It seems like the major player in this whole '3rd party' advertising is now a group called 'Working Families', which is sponsored by several labor unions.

Not that I necessarily agree with all of Hudak's platform (I certainly question where he'll find all the government jobs he plans to cut..)

Ironically, at one point Harper was trying to get rid of 3rd party spending limits federally; at this point, he's probably quite happy that he failed to do so.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

Not that I necessarily agree with all of Hudak's platform (I certainly question where he'll find all the government jobs he plans to cut..)

Golly gee. I'd love to know what parts you do support . . . and why.

 

[Snarf]

Sorry about the sidetrack - but I've always admired the "two party system" in the states. A lot of people seem to complain about the apparent lack of choice there. But if you're Canadian, and anywhere left of centre, you have choice up the wazoo! Liberal, NDP, Bloc, Green.
The conservatives only have one platform, ONE, and they've been racking up the votes like no ones business. Why dilute your votes? They realize choice sucks, and when your opposing ideology increases their voting choices, while you keep yours at 1, you'll come out the winner every time.
Justin better be one charming mofo in 2015.

 

[Corsair 115]

My first question would be is there any scientific proof that all this third-party advertising spending (or party spending for that matter) really makes any difference to the outcome of a provincial or federal election in Canada? I have my doubts it makes much of a difference. Personally, election ads are all the same bag of horrible clichéd crap, so I find it hard to believe anyone would take any of them even remotely seriously.


I regards to Hudak himself... *shudder* He is, as far as I'm concerned, the weasely weasel of Weaselton. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

You know it's bad with his campaign when he tried to float the "the Liberals lied about the Eaves conservatives leaving a deficit!" when independent auditors had reviewed the government's books and found that, yes, the outgoing PC government had lied about having balanced books. Then there was his 'million jobs plan' which looks to be, as independent economists have said, a rather obvious misreading of a Conference Board of Canada report. But rather than admit that, of course, it's doubling-down time. (Never mind the fact that it'd actually have to be a 1.1 million jobs plan in order to make up for the 100,000 or so public sector jobs that would be cut under his premiership.)

There was also an amazing video on YouTube from near the very start of the campaign where he kept getting asked about his stance on an issue in spite of him trying to avoid the question with the usual politico-babble. When it was clear the reporter was not going to accept Hudak's non-answer, Hudak actually just turned around and left the podium with the rest of his entourage without saying another word.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

My first question would be is there any scientific proof that all this third-party advertising spending (or party spending for that matter) really makes any difference to the outcome of a provincial or federal election in Canada? I have my doubts it makes much of a difference. Personally, election ads are all the same bag of horrible clichéd crap, so I find it hard to believe anyone would take any of them even remotely seriously.


I regards to Hudak himself... *shudder* He is, as far as I'm concerned, the weasely weasel of Weaselton. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

You know it's bad with his campaign when he tried to float the "the Liberals lied about the Eaves conservatives leaving a deficit!" when independent auditors had reviewed the government's books and found that, yes, the outgoing PC government had lied about having balanced books. Then there was his 'million jobs plan' which looks to be, as independent economists have said, a rather obvious misreading of a Conference Board of Canada report. But rather than admit that, of course, it's doubling-down time. (Never mind the fact that it'd actually have to be a 1.1 million jobs plan in order to make up for the 100,000 or so public sector jobs that would be cut under his premiership.)

There was also an amazing video on YouTube from near the very start of the campaign where he kept getting asked about his stance on an issue in spite of him trying to avoid the question with the usual politico-babble. When it was clear the reporter was not going to accept Hudak's non-answer, Hudak actually just turned around and left the podium with the rest of his entourage without saying another word.

This was not quite the Goebbels' quote I was looking for but it's close enough: "It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” Fortunately Hudak is not that good.

 

[Corsair 115]

I remember hearing Hudak on the radio in an interview during the last election. For the first few moments, while the basic introductions and small talk was happening, he actually sounded like a real person, genuine, and someone I would at least give a listen to. Then the interview proper started, and that real person vanished instantly, replaced by party talking points being constantly repeated and non-answers to questions. The difference was striking.

In the span of just a few moments he went from a real person to a political robot. If he had stayed a real person I would have listened. As soon as the political robot appeared, I turned the radio off. (I still have a hard time believing people, here at least, are actually swayed by that manufactured, hopelessly artificial political crap.)

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I remember hearing Hudak on the radio in an interview during the last election. For the first few moments, while the basic introductions and small talk was happening, he actually sounded like a real person, genuine, and someone I would at least give a listen to. Then the interview proper started, and that real person vanished instantly, replaced by party talking points being constantly repeated and non-answers to questions. The difference was striking.

In the span of just a few moments he went from a real person to a political robot. If he had stayed a real person I would have listened. As soon as the political robot appeared, I turned the radio off. (I still have a hard time believing people, here at least, are actually swayed by that manufactured, hopelessly artificial political crap.)

I've actually viewed the millionjobs web site. There is not a single fact in the entire farrago of right wing neocon nonsense.

 

[Corsair 115]

I've actually viewed the millionjobs web site. There is not a single fact in the entire farrago of right wing neocon nonsense.

It's been my concern for awhile that the Progressive Conservatives provincially, and the Conservatives federally, seem intent on importing American-style politics into Canada. Hudak is but the lastest example of someone who seems to be taking pages out of the Republican Party playbook.

Politics here is certainly nowhere near angelic, but at least it's not close to being the same kind of sheer insanity that American politics has become. I'd like to keep it that way. So whenever the Tories at either level seem to be adopting American-style political tactics, all they have done is guarantee they'll not be getting my vote.

 

[Corsair 115]

Well, well, well, look at the story I just saw over at the CBC News web site:

Ontario election 2014: Liberals allege 'voter suppression' by PCs. 'Tory campaign apologizes for London, Ottawa letters that contain wrong poll locations'

 

[Segnosaur]

Sorry about the delay in following up on this, but I have't had time to post in a while...

Not that I necessarily agree with all of Hudak's platform (I certainly question where he'll find all the government jobs he plans to cut..)

Golly gee. I'd love to know what parts you do support . . . and why.

Well, for one, I believe that the evidence suggests that the wages paid to, and the number of people employed by the provincial government has outstripped the public service. (See: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/09/private-public-sector-wage-gap-growing). As such, the conservative plans to freeze public sector wages is something I support.

The conservatives have also stated that they want to make our educational system put more emphasis on science and technology, something I agree with. (Now, I know some will point out how evil the conservatives are for proposing an increase in class sizes; however, I have seen evidence to suggest that class size does not affect student performance.)

They wanted to speed up the integration of skilled immigrants into the work force.

They said they want to invest in nuclear power, something that I think would be valuable, what with global warming and all. (Admittedly they didn't give concrete plans on what they will be doing.)

 

[Segnosaur]

Sorry about the sidetrack - but I've always admired the "two party system" in the states. A lot of people seem to complain about the apparent lack of choice there. But if you're Canadian, and anywhere left of centre, you have choice up the wazoo! Liberal, NDP, Bloc, Green.
The conservatives only have one platform, ONE, and they've been racking up the votes like no ones business. Why dilute your votes? They realize choice sucks, and when your opposing ideology increases their voting choices, while you keep yours at 1, you'll come out the winner every time.
Justin better be one charming mofo in 2015.

Ah, so many things wrong with that post... where to begin?

First of all, while both the Liberals and NDP are further to the "political left" than the conservatives, that does not mean that they are identical. The Liberals are closer to the political center. Assuming that the Liberals and NDP can be "lumped together" would not mean that each party's voters would vote for the new party... instead, many current central liberals would probably disagree with involving their party with the "far left" NDP and switch their vote to the conservatives.

Secondly, why do you think the conservatives have been "racking up the votes"? The conservatives have lost multiple ontario elections, and while they are in power federally, they've only had 1 majority, and that's after multiple elections of the Liberals.

Lastly, keep in mind that Canadians (on average) are not as "left wing" as Liberals or NDP supporters might actually think. When you look at individual issues, you will often find Canadians hold opinions even further to the right than even the conservatives. For example, did you know that several years ago, before the Liberals passed the gay marriage act, most Canadians were actually opposed to the Liberal plans? Or that some polls have showed that a majority favor private health care options (something that even the conservatives seem to avoid suggesting).

 

[Segnosaur]

My first question would be is there any scientific proof that all this third-party advertising spending (or party spending for that matter) really makes any difference to the outcome of a provincial or federal election in Canada?

First of all, studies on the effectiveness of negative ads (which is basically what the "working families" organization does) show mixed results. Some show no effectiveness, while others actually show they can impact elections.

http://www.mattblackwell.org/files/papers/dynci.pdf
http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/10/23/are-negative-campaign-ads-effective/46488.html

Secondly, you questioned whether they make a difference to elections "in canada"... do you think that the situation is different here in Canada than it is in the U.S.?

Lastly, if you think that such advertising is ineffective, do you then think that all campaign finance restrictions should be removed?

I have my doubts it makes much of a difference.

Define "much of a difference". Remember, you're dealing with a "first past the post system", where ridings can be won or lost on a few votes.

Personally, election ads are all the same bag of horrible clichéd crap, so I find it hard to believe anyone would take any of them even remotely seriously.

Actually I believe that there have been studies that show that those who pay the most attention to election ads actually are more knowledgable about the issues in general. (Not necessarily that voters are getting their knowledge from the negative ads, but they do force candidates to clarify positions, etc.)

I regards to Hudak himself... *shudder* He is, as far as I'm concerned, the weasely weasel of Weaselton. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

If you want to talk trust, I don't think any of the leaders come out too favoribly.

Remember the Liberals, and their whole "Lets destroy gas plant evidence before the cops get it". Or Kathleen Wynn's famous ad where she starts out saying "I don't like attack ads"... then launches into an attack ad of her own.

Or how about the NDP, and their whole "Boo hissss!! the Gas plant issue Liberals are corrupt! But we'll keep them in power anyways".

The fact that you seem to be so concerned about Hudak when the other parties have shown even more concerning issues of trustworthiness probably says more about you and your own personal biases, rather than how "trustworthy" the conservatives are.

You know it's bad with his campaign when he tried to float the "the Liberals lied about the Eaves conservatives leaving a deficit!" when independent auditors had reviewed the government's books and found that, yes, the outgoing PC government had lied about having balanced books.

First of all, if I remember correctly, the issue surrounding the Eve's budget was largely due to a change in accounting practices. (Things like hospital debt weren't originally counted when calculating government deficit... the accounting practices changed when the Liberals got into power, and voila! the deficit appeared!)

Secondly, keep in mind that at the time the Conservitves weren't claiming that the books were balanced... I believe the conservatives were already predicting a shortfall... just not quite as big as the Liberals claim they were left.

Lastly, keep in mind that while you seem to be condemning the conservatives, one of the first things the Liberals did when they got into power was break one of their election promises... "We will not raise taxes". (Now, before you start claiming "well its because of the big deficit they were left, keep in mind that the Liberals already claimed the conservatives had a big deficit...)

Then there was his 'million jobs plan' which looks to be, as independent economists have said, a rather obvious misreading of a Conference Board of Canada report.

And keep in mind that other economists have complained that the Liberals and NDP plans were short on details...

Do complaints be economists only matter if they criticize the conservatives?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/29/ontario-election-2014-liberal-ndp-platforrms_n_5414118.html

There was also an amazing video on YouTube from near the very start of the campaign where he kept getting asked about his stance on an issue in spite of him trying to avoid the question with the usual politico-babble. When it was clear the reporter was not going to accept Hudak's non-answer, Hudak actually just turned around and left the podium with the rest of his entourage without saying another word.

First of all, lets assume that that video was true... not edited to make him look bad, not just a 'bad day', etc.

I would much rather have a politician who "non-answers" a few questions, than a party that actually destroys evidence related to a police investigation.

But that's just me...

It's been my concern for awhile that the Progressive Conservatives provincially, and the Conservatives federally, seem intent on importing American-style politics into Canada. Hudak is but the lastest example of someone who seems to be taking pages out of the Republican Party playbook.

Politics here is certainly nowhere near angelic, but at least it's not close to being the same kind of sheer insanity that American politics has become.

All political parties have been involved in rather nasty politics... singling out the conservatives for their "bad" actions again shows more of your own bias than anything else.

You've got Chretien calling snap elections early (and costing taxpayers money) just to take advantage of a divided opposition. You had Trudeau and his "Zap you're frozen" politics.

Politics has always been nasty.

 

[Caper]

Golly gee. I'd love to know what parts you do support . . . and why.

He was better the the other two.... but in the end not all that different. Ontario voted and they will (and should) get what they deserve.

 

[Caper]

Ah, so many things wrong with that post... where to begin?

First of all, while both the Liberals and NDP are further to the "political left" than the conservatives, that does not mean that they are identical. The Liberals are closer to the political center. Assuming that the Liberals and NDP can be "lumped together" would not mean that each party's voters would vote for the new party... instead, many current central liberals would probably disagree with involving their party with the "far left" NDP and switch their vote to the conservatives.

Secondly, why do you think the conservatives have been "racking up the votes"? The conservatives have lost multiple ontario elections, and while they are in power federally, they've only had 1 majority, and that's after multiple elections of the Liberals.

Lastly, keep in mind that Canadians (on average) are not as "left wing" as Liberals or NDP supporters might actually think. When you look at individual issues, you will often find Canadians hold opinions even further to the right than even the conservatives. For example, did you know that several years ago, before the Liberals passed the gay marriage act, most Canadians were actually opposed to the Liberal plans? Or that some polls have showed that a majority favor private health care options (something that even the conservatives seem to avoid suggesting).

Furthermore. You have, as in our case here in Nova Scotia, where the liberal government is the most right wing party. The platforms are basically interchangeable.

 

[Corsair 115]

Secondly, you questioned whether they make a difference to elections "in canada"... do you think that the situation is different here in Canada than it is in the U.S.?

Since this thread is about elections in Canada, it only seemed reasonably to constrain it to that geography. (Additionally, it is certainly possible that there may be differences between Canada and the U.S.)

Lastly, if you think that such advertising is ineffective, do you then think that all campaign finance restrictions should be removed?

I don't know if it is effective or not. I've seen claims both ways, which is why I asked if there is any substantive evidence one way or the other. Personally, it has no effect on me, but then I am not the entire electorate.

As to campaign finance restrictions, I'd rather err on the side of caution and keep the tighter restrictions here. There doesn't seem to be any problem conducting elections with such financing restrictions, and it does put all candidates seeking the vote on a more equal footing.

Define "much of a difference". Remember, you're dealing with a "first past the post system", where ridings can be won or lost on a few votes.

I've heard it claimed in the U.S. that those candidates who spend the larger amount on their campaigns win with a high degree on consistency. If this is indeed the case, then campaign financing would clearly be an important factor on the outcome. However, as stated earlier, I'm not convinced that this is so.

Actually I believe that there have been studies that show that those who pay the most attention to election ads actually are more knowledgable about the issues in general.

They must be watching different election ads from me, because the ones I've seen in the past have done little but tout the same tired rhetoric and clichés I've heard a million times before. Which is precisely why I stopped paying attention to them.

If you want to talk trust, I don't think any of the leaders come out too favoribly.

It's a continuum, granted.

Remember the Liberals, and their whole "Lets destroy gas plant evidence before the cops get it". Or Kathleen Wynn's famous ad where she starts out saying "I don't like attack ads"... then launches into an attack ad of her own.

Or how about the NDP, and their whole "Boo hissss!! the Gas plant issue Liberals are corrupt! But we'll keep them in power anyways".

Did I say the other parties were innocent? Am I obligated to mention every wrongdoing by every party ever? Or can I just single out some examples that come to mind, with the understanding that others will single out other examples that they are more familiar with?

The fact that you seem to be so concerned about Hudak when the other parties have shown even more concerning issues of trustworthiness probably says more about you and your own personal biases, rather than how "trustworthy" the conservatives are.

His rhetoric is warmed-over stuff largely imported from south of the border. If you find that sort of stuff compelling, that's your prerogative. I prefer something more. (His "the Liberals lied about the last Conservative government leaving a deficit!" was just so lame and so awful since it was so easily disproved pretty much sank him as far as I was concerned. It isn't enough to say the other guys are bad; he has to show why his guys are good and are worth a vote He failed at that in my opinion.)

I related the story previously about his radio appearance from the last election, where he went from a real person to a political party automaton robotically spouting the party rhetorical line. Nothing changed in this regard in this election.

Lastly, keep in mind that while you seem to be condemning the conservatives, one of the first things the Liberals did when they got into power was break one of their election promises... "We will not raise taxes".

Any election campaign promise should be taken with a huge grain of salt. I'd rather they keep them than not, but failing to keep some of them should be surprising to no one.

Do complaints be economists only matter if they criticize the conservatives?

Did I make that claim?

First of all, lets assume that that video was true... not edited to make him look bad, not just a 'bad day', etc.

Wish I had the link handy to the one I am referring to. As I recall, it was from very early in the campaign. Something to do with subsidies provided by government to some businesses which the PCs wanted to end while Mr. Hudak was on stage with some from the music industry speaking in favour of a fund which was essentially a subsidy for that industry. He was asked whether his policy of ending such subsidies applied to the music industry fund—a valid question to my mind as it seemed an apparent contradiction—but rather than attempting to resolve that seeming contradiction, Mr. Hudak eventually gave up when his more, shall we say, evasive non-answers weren't accepted.

I wish more politicians had their feet held to this fire this way.

All political parties have been involved in rather nasty politics... singling out the conservatives for their "bad" actions again shows more of your own bias than anything else.

So again I am required to remember and state every wrongdoing by every party ever? I must be an election and political encyclopedia in order to post anything in order for it to be considered unbiased? I assume this is some sort of fairness doctrine that you insist upon? One is not free to pick whatever examples they have at hand and cannot rely on others to post up whatever examples they have at hand?

You've got Chretien calling snap elections early (and costing taxpayers money) just to take advantage of a divided opposition.

You have a problem then with the electoral system? I may not like a governing party calling an "early" election (we need to define that term; how "early" is too early?) but I don't begrudge them doing so as a government has that right under our system. David Peterson tried that in Ontario in 1990 and the public, realizing there was no good reason for the "early" election call, punished his party for it. Presumably the same situation could happen with "early" federal elections.

 

[Segnosaur]

Furthermore. You have, as in our case here in Nova Scotia, where the liberal government is the most right wing party. The platforms are basically interchangeable.

It is true that parties may shift themselves around in the political spectrum.

And its also true that parties are not necessarily that far apart. (Its rather sad that thinking you might want to vote for a party that doesn't want to give pay raises to civil servants who already earn more than private sector counterparts somehow means you are a rabid fundamentalist tea party wannabe who will force all gay people back in the closet.)

I do have to disagree with your assumption that "parties are interchangable". Even if none of the parties (provincially or federally) is particularly radical, that doesn't mean that there aren't enough differences to distinguish each of them.

 

[Segnosaur]

Lastly, if you think that such advertising is ineffective, do you then think that all campaign finance restrictions should be removed?

Since this thread is about elections in Canada, it only seemed reasonably to constrain it to that geography.

Actually, my opening post mentioned the U.S. rules regarding 3rd party spending, and the forum title (the "other side") was referring to the difference between the Right-wing Superpacs in the U.S. that often have wealthy benefactors, and the left wing organizations targeting the conservatives.

So, I do think a discussion about (and comparisons with) other countries are warranted.

(Additionally, it is certainly possible that there may be differences between Canada and the U.S.)

Well, SuperPacs in the U.S. spent millions attempting to elect Romney and failed. 3rd parties spent money trying to keep the conservatives from getting elected, and now we have a Liberal majority.

So from the evidence, it looks like Canadians are even more gullible than the Americans.

(That's not exactly a serious analysis, since we only have a couple of elections on either side of the border as data points.)

As to campaign finance restrictions, I'd rather err on the side of caution and keep the tighter restrictions here.

As I pointed out, while there are federal restrictions, Ontario has no such rules.

The provincial Liberals said they might bring in such rules, but I guess they were too busy destroying evidence for the police investigation into the gas plant scandal.

Actually I believe that there have been studies that show that those who pay the most attention to election ads actually are more knowledgable about the issues in general.

They must be watching different election ads from me, because the ones I've seen in the past have done little but tout the same tired rhetoric and clichés I've heard a million times before. Which is precisely why I stopped paying attention to them.

As I said before... people don't become more knowledgable from the content of attack ads... they become knowledgable because those ads sometimes force candidates to clarify their positions.

If you want to talk trust, I don't think any of the leaders come out too favoribly.

It's a continuum, granted.

yes it is...

And as I said, a party that actively destroys evidence in a police investigation should probably been seen as "less trustworthy" than one with a leader that doesn't answer questions the way you want.

Yet for some reason the only party or leader you saw fit to characterize as "weasely". Why is that?

Remember the Liberals, and their whole "Lets destroy gas plant evidence before the cops get it". Or Kathleen Wynn's famous ad where she starts out saying "I don't like attack ads"... then launches into an attack ad of her own.

Did I say the other parties were innocent? Am I obligated to mention every wrongdoing by every party ever? Or can I just single out some examples that come to mind, with the understanding that others will single out other examples that they are more familiar with?

Here's a suggestion... If you don't want to be characterized as an anti-conservative partisan hack, don't write like one.

Prior to my last post, you made 4 posts in this thread. You made multiple attacks on the conservatives, labeling the leader a 'weasel', pointing to economists who disagree with his policies, etc. Yet you ignore even WORSE examples in the case of the other parties.

Heck, I admit I usually support the conservatives, but even I'm willing to see flaws in their actions. (Even in my opening post I pointed out Harper's mistake of trying to remove campaign spending restrictions at the federal liberals.)

The fact that you seem to be so concerned about Hudak when the other parties have shown even more concerning issues of trustworthiness probably says more about you and your own personal biases, rather than how "trustworthy" the conservatives are.

His rhetoric is warmed-over stuff largely imported from south of the border.

What exactly is "warmed over/imported stuff" supposed to mean?

Seriously, when did the idea that "perhaps we shouldn't be paying civil servants significantly more than private sector employees doing identical jobs" become some sort of U.S. based cliches?

(His "the Liberals lied about the last Conservative government leaving a deficit!" was just so lame and so awful since it was so easily disproved pretty much sank him as far as I was concerned.

I already addressed that issue.

It isn't enough to say the other guys are bad; he has to show why his guys are good and are worth a vote He failed at that in my opinion.)

And just out of curiosity, how exactly did the Liberals show they were "good"? Are you in favor of political parties destroying evidence, while at the same time seeing the province turned from a have to have-not status?

I related the story previously about his radio appearance from the last election, where he went from a real person to a political party automaton robotically spouting the party rhetorical line. Nothing changed in this regard in this election.

So?

Nobody claimed that Hudak was charismatic, or an effective campaigner.

Personally, I'd rather politics be based on ideas and policies, rather than who can be the most charismatic.

Any election campaign promise should be taken with a huge grain of salt. I'd rather they keep them than not, but failing to keep some of them should be surprising to no one.

Ok, so it was acceptible for the Liberals to lie (after all, their campaign promises are to be taken with a grain of salt), but Hudak and the conservative's actions get them characterized as "Weasels".

Do complaints be economists only matter if they criticize the conservatives?

Did I make that claim?

You only seem to mention it when the economists were criticizing the conservatives.

Wish I had the link handy to the one I am referring to. As I recall, it was from very early in the campaign. Something to do with subsidies provided by government to some businesses which the PCs wanted to end while Mr. Hudak was on stage with some from the music industry speaking in favour of a fund which was essentially a subsidy for that industry. He was asked whether his policy of ending such subsidies applied to the music industry fund...

Once again... So?

Never claimed that Hudak was a great campaigner.

The fact that you seem to be so fixated on this particular event (while ignoring other, more significant events, like Wynn missing question period to avoid questions about the Gas plant scandal)

Why does Hudak's refusal to address the question of someone on some campaign stop become a more worthy of mention than Wynn's avoiding question period to avoid questions about the gas plant scandal?

All political parties have been involved in rather nasty politics... singling out the conservatives for their "bad" actions again shows more of your own bias than anything else.

So again I am required to remember and state every wrongdoing by every party ever?

Well, depends...

Do you want to be considered a hypocrite?

And its not that you have to remember each and every wrongdoing by every party.... But making multiple posts condemning one party, while ignoring similar (if not greater) transgressions on other parties (including I suspect whatever party you voted for) is something people can be called out for.

You've got Chretien calling snap elections early (and costing taxpayers money) just to take advantage of a divided opposition.

You have a problem then with the electoral system?

No, I have a problem with hypocricy...

Namely, condemning one party (the conservatives) for bringing in "evil American politics" into Canada, and ignoring actions that are just as bad from other parties.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Actually, my opening post mentioned the U.S. rules regarding 3rd party spending, and the forum title (the "other side") was referring to the difference between the Right-wing Superpacs in the U.S. that often have wealthy benefactors, and the left wing organizations targeting the conservatives.

So, I do think a discussion about (and comparisons with) other countries are warranted.


Well, SuperPacs in the U.S. spent millions attempting to elect Romney and failed. 3rd parties spent money trying to keep the conservatives from getting elected, and now we have a Liberal majority.

So from the evidence, it looks like Canadians are even more gullible than the Americans.

(That's not exactly a serious analysis, since we only have a couple of elections on either side of the border as data points.)


As I pointed out, while there are federal restrictions, Ontario has no such rules.

The provincial Liberals said they might bring in such rules, but I guess they were too busy destroying evidence for the police investigation into the gas plant scandal.

As I said before... people don't become more knowledgable from the content of attack ads... they become knowledgable because those ads sometimes force candidates to clarify their positions.


yes it is...

And as I said, a party that actively destroys evidence in a police investigation should probably been seen as "less trustworthy" than one with a leader that doesn't answer questions the way you want.

Yet for some reason the only party or leader you saw fit to characterize as "weasely". Why is that?


Here's a suggestion... If you don't want to be characterized as an anti-conservative partisan hack, don't write like one.

Prior to my last post, you made 4 posts in this thread. You made multiple attacks on the conservatives, labeling the leader a 'weasel', pointing to economists who disagree with his policies, etc. Yet you ignore even WORSE examples in the case of the other parties.

Heck, I admit I usually support the conservatives, but even I'm willing to see flaws in their actions. (Even in my opening post I pointed out Harper's mistake of trying to remove campaign spending restrictions at the federal liberals.)




What exactly is "warmed over/imported stuff" supposed to mean?

Seriously, when did the idea that "perhaps we shouldn't be paying civil servants significantly more than private sector employees doing identical jobs" become some sort of U.S. based cliches?


I already addressed that issue.

And just out of curiosity, how exactly did the Liberals show they were "good"? Are you in favor of political parties destroying evidence, while at the same time seeing the province turned from a have to have-not status?


So?

Nobody claimed that Hudak was charismatic, or an effective campaigner.

Personally, I'd rather politics be based on ideas and policies, rather than who can be the most charismatic.


Ok, so it was acceptible for the Liberals to lie (after all, their campaign promises are to be taken with a grain of salt), but Hudak and the conservative's actions get them characterized as "Weasels".


You only seem to mention it when the economists were criticizing the conservatives.


Once again... So?

Never claimed that Hudak was a great campaigner.

The fact that you seem to be so fixated on this particular event (while ignoring other, more significant events, like Wynn missing question period to avoid questions about the Gas plant scandal)

Why does Hudak's refusal to address the question of someone on some campaign stop become a more worthy of mention than Wynn's avoiding question period to avoid questions about the gas plant scandal?

Well, depends...

Do you want to be considered a hypocrite?

And its not that you have to remember each and every wrongdoing by every party.... But making multiple posts condemning one party, while ignoring similar (if not greater) transgressions on other parties (including I suspect whatever party you voted for) is something people can be called out for.

No, I have a problem with hypocricy...

Namely, condemning one party (the conservatives) for bringing in "evil American politics" into Canada, and ignoring actions that are just as bad from other parties.

Walkerton.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Walkerton.

I'll see your Walkerton and raise you Orange, E Health scandal, gas plant scandal and best of all, the Ontario health tax.

Ontarians just admitted you can lie to them all you want, waste their tax dollars at will and not only will they vote you back in but give you a majority as well.

You know what they say, people get the government they deserve.

 

[Segnosaur]

Walkerton.

I'm always amazed at the amount of flack the Harris Conservatives get over Walkerton. The main culprits over Walkerton were the Koebel brothers, who were incompetent (and sometimes drunk) at their job, and who lied in order to attempt to cover up the problems.

Was the Harris government responsible for hiring the Koebels? Nope... they had been working for years before the Harris government election... they were still messing around on the job under the previous Liberal and NDP governments. Did the private labs that were used (due to the conservative privatization activities) mess up? Nope... they found (and reported) the contamination to the city... who did nothing with the information.

Now, the conservatives aren't completely blameless; for example they did make a mistake by not requiring that tests for positive contamination didn't go to the health department, but had the Koebel's been competent, they would have taken the proper action.

And I do believe the city of Walkerton requested provincial funding to upgrade their plant before the contamination but were turned down. But again... while their equipment was outdated, it would still have done the job if not run by idiots.

The message people seem to be taking away from the incident is "boo! Privatization is bad!". The message they should be taking away is "Perhaps government employees aren't as great as they like to portray themselves".

And here's something to think about... Lets say Walkerton didn't happen... The Koebel brothers might still be employed at the water plant. And with the trend of the Liberals to give out massive pay increases, they might have gotten more pay raises over the past few years than you did, despite being incompetent at their job.