Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Government ads during hockey games


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:30 PM

What is with these commercials, the ones with the dominoes? Is B.C. now the only place in North America with a functioning economy? I must have missed that memo cause it seems like we're still in pretty bad shape to me. Why are they spamming our hockey games with this garbage?

Are they gonna have ads about how our Premier is unelected, or about how the legislature never sits and none of the province's business has been done in years? Are they going to talk about any major policy programs this government has brought in? That might be a bit too tall an order.

What's more, I've heard rumours that these ads are being bought and produced with taxpayer money. Personally I'd prefer my tax money go to pay for Budget Brake and Muffler commercials, those make me nostalgic for the 80s when I didn't have a tv and had to listen to the games on the radio, the song remains the same!

I don't need this political muck wrecking my hockey-viewing experience by reminding me how incompetent and corrupt our government is and how dismal this coming election is gonna be. Between the NDP and these clowns, I'd rather vote for some random crackhead off the street. So thanks to the big ol marketing department for constantly putting me in a bad mood, I guess.
  • 4

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#2 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,695 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:31 PM

You're on the wrong forums then. Here they praised gun control rants during NFL games.
  • 0

#3 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,863 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:38 PM

Yeah!

I'd MUCH rather have endless ads for the new Canadian Tire...{insert tool which is a combination of 2 other tools, but doing the job of neither effectively}!!!
  • 0
Posted Image

#4 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,097 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:51 PM

Get used to it. With the election coming it's only going to get worse.
  • 0
Posted Image

#5 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:01 PM

What is with these commercials, the ones with the dominoes? Is B.C. now the only place in North America with a functioning economy? I must have missed that memo cause it seems like we're still in pretty bad shape to me. Why are they spamming our hockey games with this garbage?

Are they gonna have ads about how our Premier is unelected, or about how the legislature never sits and none of the province's business has been done in years? Are they going to talk about any major policy programs this government has brought in? That might be a bit too tall an order.

What's more, I've heard rumours that these ads are being bought and produced with taxpayer money. Personally I'd prefer my tax money go to pay for Budget Brake and Muffler commercials, those make me nostalgic for the 80s when I didn't have a tv and had to listen to the games on the radio, the song remains the same!

I don't need this political muck wrecking my hockey-viewing experience by reminding me how incompetent and corrupt our government is and how dismal this coming election is gonna be. Between the NDP and these clowns, I'd rather vote for some random crackhead off the street. So thanks to the big ol marketing department for constantly putting me in a bad mood, I guess.

You do realize that in BC we do not vote for a Premier? That choice is made by the BC Liberals who elect a leader who is then called upon the Lieutenant Governor to form a government. The last time I checked Christy Clark was an elected MLA.

Hockey broadcasts sell advertising time. Such is life. Better than a Depends commercial - well maybe not that much.

No rumour, taxpayer money is being spent.


Want to know why the Christy Clark government is spending $15 million of taxpayers’ money on feel-good TV commercials, despite the withering criticism they take for doing it?


Want to know why Clark’s Liberals slime NDP leader Adrian Dix with brutal attack ads, when most people claim they’re sick and tired of nasty, personal politics?


Because it all works, that’s why. Just check the latest polls.


The newest Angus Reid survey shows Clark’s Liberals slowly but surely gaining on Dix’s NDP. The new poll pegs Liberal support at 31 per cent, their best showing in more than a year.


The NDP, meanwhile, dropped one point to 46 per cent.


That’s still a hefty 15-point advantage for the NDP, big enough for a solid majority if the lead holds up till the May 14 election.


But big leads rarely hold up in B.C. politics. It always gets closer. And the numbers are moving in Christy Clark’s direction.


That’s why the government won’t back off on its saturation TV advertising — especially on Canucks game nights, now that hockey’s back on the tube.


And you can bet the Liberals and their big-business allies will ramp up their negative assaults on Dix to a new high (or low, depending on your point of view).


Dix, who says he wants to change the poisoned culture of politics, has vowed not to return fire and attack Clark with negative ads. Dix said he expects the NDP’s supporters in the labour movement to keep it clean, too.


But while Dix vows to keep the gloves on, the Liberals are analyzing bare-knuckle tactics that succeeded in other provinces.


One recent election I’m told the Liberals are examining closely: last fall’s nasty tilt in Manitoba, where NDP Premier Greg Selinger defied the polls and pundits to turn back the challenge of the Conservative party, then led by Hugh McFadyen.


How did the NDP win an unprecedented fourth consecutive election in Manitoba? “Because they handled difficult public-policy questions extremely well,” Dix told me in an interview.


Um, not quite, Adrian. The NDP won in Manitoba by using an onslaught of negative ads against the Conservative leader.


“McFadyen would overturn water-protection laws and allow E. coli and urine to pollute our rivers and lakes,” said one ad. “McFadyen: Too big a risk. Nice suit though,” went another.


Get this: McFadyen was a former chief-of-staff to ex-premier Gary Filmon, and the Manitoba NDP effectively pinned all kinds of old scandals to him in their attack ads.


Dix, of course, is a former right-hand-man to an ex-premier, too: the scandal-plagued Glen Clark. No wonder the B.C. Liberals are studying the Manitoba playbook!


Go to YouTube and search “How Selinger’s NDP won 2011 election” to watch the negative Manitoba ads.


Dix is in for the same treatment, which makes me wonder if he’ll stay on the high road once the polls tighten up, as they always do.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Liberal+working+keep+seeing+them/7851335/story.html#ixzz2IkRjQUtF
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#6 stonecoldstevebernier

stonecoldstevebernier

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 09

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:17 PM

It's politics, nothing new, and nothing specific to BC... happens in every province, federally, pretty much any major election anywhere. It's underhanded but hey, that's how they like doing business. If someone who doesn't have a preference/doesn't care about the election, a few propaganda/attack ads could tilt you one way in the direction of a 'lesser of two evils'. I still doubt it'll make a difference for the Liberals though, their time in this province is up for a few years.
  • 0

Posted Image

3DS FC: 2664 3135 8148. Feel free to add me!


#7 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,562 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:22 PM

SO basically tax payer money is paying for pre-election ads, that's insane! Elections Canada needs to tighten up the rules up here this seems like a massive loop hole that gives the governing party a huge advantage going into the next election.
  • 0
"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/

#8 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:26 PM

SO basically tax payer money is paying for pre-election ads, that's insane! Elections Canada needs to tighten up the rules up here this seems like a massive loop hole that gives the governing party a huge advantage going into the next election.

Elections Canada is a federal agency that is involved with federal election spending and has nothing to do with this.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#9 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,106 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 22 January 2013 - 05:34 PM

Elections Canada is a federal agency that is involved with federal election spending and has nothing to do with this.


Perhaps they should consider expanding their reach given that this waste of taxpayer money seems to go on in every province with every political party.
  • 0

#10 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 06:58 PM

Perhaps they should consider expanding their reach given that this waste of taxpayer money seems to go on in every province with every political party.

???

You do understand we are a federal system, eh?
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#11 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,572 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:07 PM

Yeah!

I'd MUCH rather have endless ads for the new Canadian Tire...{insert tool which is a combination of 2 other tools, but doing the job of neither effectively}!!!

At least Canadian Tire pays for their own ads, They're not using D-Money or anyone else's money to try to flog their useless crap.

I do wish Canadian Tire would bring back Ted, The Canadian Tire Guy though. Really miss that condescending advice.
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#12 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,572 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:20 PM

What is with these commercials, the ones with the dominoes? Is B.C. now the only place in North America with a functioning economy? I must have missed that memo cause it seems like we're still in pretty bad shape to me. Why are they spamming our hockey games with this garbage?

Are they gonna have ads about how our Premier is unelected, or about how the legislature never sits and none of the province's business has been done in years? Are they going to talk about any major policy programs this government has brought in? That might be a bit too tall an order.

What's more, I've heard rumours that these ads are being bought and produced with taxpayer money. Personally I'd prefer my tax money go to pay for Budget Brake and Muffler commercials, those make me nostalgic for the 80s when I didn't have a tv and had to listen to the games on the radio, the song remains the same!

I don't need this political muck wrecking my hockey-viewing experience by reminding me how incompetent and corrupt our government is and how dismal this coming election is gonna be. Between the NDP and these clowns, I'd rather vote for some random crackhead off the street. So thanks to the big ol marketing department for constantly putting me in a bad mood, I guess.

So British Columbia has now produced ideologically conservative un-elected female leaders at both the federal and the provincial level now.

I guess we BCers ought be proud eh???!!!
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#13 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:31 PM

You do realize that in BC we do not vote for a Premier? That choice is made by the BC Liberals who elect a leader who is then called upon the Lieutenant Governor to form a government. The last time I checked Christy Clark was an elected MLA.


C'mon now you know what I mean. You can't seriously claim that a party leader taking their party into the election and winning is the same thing as when the convention happens with the party already in power and the new leader wins a by-election. It is absolutely not the same thing, the voters of B.C. have never elected a Christy Clark Liberal government, it's just like with Dosanjh, and Miller or whatever his name was, and the one who took over for Vanderzalm. Their position as Premier is not as legitimate, democratically, as a leader who goes through the election themselves; the people have not yet had their say.
  • 0

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#14 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,988 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:41 PM

Doesn't matter this Province has had the worst people elected for decades. It's just which lunatic do you want to run the asylum?
The sad part is the rest of us in the province don't demand better of our supposedly democratically elected leaders.

Accountablity? Ha!
Corruption? All sides.
Stupidity? Absolutely
Lack of direction? Of course.
Selling out our province and resources? Part and parcel of government agendas.

It is sick though that the government can waste taxpayer dollars on propaganda. Then then that's what government is best at isn't it? Waste.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#15 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:36 PM

C'mon now you know what I mean. You can't seriously claim that a party leader taking their party into the election and winning is the same thing as when the convention happens with the party already in power and the new leader wins a by-election. It is absolutely not the same thing, the voters of B.C. have never elected a Christy Clark Liberal government, it's just like with Dosanjh, and Miller or whatever his name was, and the one who took over for Vanderzalm. Their position as Premier is not as legitimate, democratically, as a leader who goes through the election themselves; the people have not yet had their say.

I know what you are trying to mean but it is not correct. You misapprehend our system of government

It is not only legitimate it is lawful and constitutional under our system of government which has come to us from Britain. We are not a presidential system and constitutionally it is conventionally accepted that the Prime Minister is the person who commands a majority of the House, irrespective of whether they led the party at the preceding general election.

It has been quite common in the UK and between 1900 and 1945 having a change of Prime Minister without a general election was the norm, rather than the exception.



Since 1900 Britain has had 22 different Prime Ministers. Our list below shows that in that period there have been 14 occasions on which 13 different Prime Ministers have come to power other than through a general election.

Year Prime Minister Party
2007 Gordon Brown Labour
1990 John Major Conservative
1976 James Callaghan Labour
1963 Sir Alec Douglas-Home Conservative
1957 Harold Macmillan Conservative
1955 Sir Anthony Eden Conservative
1940 Winston Churchill Conservative
1937 Neville Chamberlain Conservative
1935 Stanley Baldwin Conservative
1923 Stanley Baldwin Conservative
1916 David Lloyd George Liberal
1908 Herbert H. Asquith Liberal
1905 Henry Campbell-Bannerman Liberal
1902 Arthur Balfour Conservative


In some instances, the Prime Minister went to the country almost immediately to secure a mandate, as was the case with Sir Anthony Eden in 1955. However, there were many occasions when a Prime Minister who came to power midway through a parliamentary term led the country for a prolonged period without having won a general election as leader of their party.

In the post-war period, John Major served for almost two years during the recession of the early 1990s before winning the 1992 general election. James Callaghan succeeded Harold Wilson as leader of the Labour party in 1976 and served as Prime Minister for three years and 29 days before being defeated by Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives in 1979.

It now appears that Gordon Brown will join Mr Callaghan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who was in charge in 1963-64, as post-war British Prime Ministers who have never secured the mandate of the British public to lead the country.

However, the constitutional position is clear. Under Britain’s parliamentary system we do not directly elect Prime Ministers but choose to elect individual MPs from particular parties. It is the parties that decide their leader. It is the Queen who invites the individual best able to command the confidence of the House of Commons to be Prime Minister, usually the leader of the largest party. There is no constitutional requirement for the Prime Minister to have led his party through a general election to remain in office.


It is only an issue if one does not understand our system of government.


Edited by Wetcoaster, 22 January 2013 - 11:43 PM.

  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#16 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 23 January 2013 - 02:31 AM

...
I know what you are trying to mean but it is not correct. You misapprehend our system of government

...


I apprehend our system of government just fine. I'm not saying the government isn't lawful and legitimate. Of course it is, this is how things work, by the examples I gave it's obvious I acknowledge that this is the way the westminster system functions. My point was that this government with this leader has not been voted on in a general election. That's just a fact. And the mandate of a government in that situation is not as strong as the alternative. Both are equally legal and constitutional, of course. But informally, the one situation is less democratic than the other.
  • 0

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#17 nucklehead

nucklehead

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,398 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 03

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:49 AM

C'mon now you know what I mean. You can't seriously claim that a party leader taking their party into the election and winning is the same thing as when the convention happens with the party already in power and the new leader wins a by-election. It is absolutely not the same thing, the voters of B.C. have never elected a Christy Clark Liberal government, it's just like with Dosanjh, and Miller or whatever his name was, and the one who took over for Vanderzalm. Their position as Premier is not as legitimate, democratically, as a leader who goes through the election themselves; the people have not yet had their say.

So, you're NOT Christie Clark then?
  • 0
biggerabacus_zps5cae10b6.jpg

I got kicked out of the slut walk for trying to bid on the participants.

-BananaMash

#18 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:19 AM

Propaganda from non publicly elected officials using taxpayer money. BC politics is a ???? joke, the butt of Canada. The government is starting to realize that there is a mass exodus of skilled young people (18-40) leaving BC for alberta and saskatchewan. Come up here to Northern Alberta and you'll meet jusy as many canuck fan bc boys as oilers fans (no one I have encountered will admit to be being a flame fan).

I am disgusted and dis illusioned with the way BC is run and sold out from underneath us. Add in all the ridiculous beuacracy,red tape, fees u[pon feesupon taxes upon fees and you have someone who employed up to 15 people in BC 3 years ago, now I am more than happy to send my tax money to the Alberta gov't and use my skills in a province that won't try to screw me and grind me down every step of the way. The Libs know I am not the only one and they are scared.

That's what's up with those adds you are seeing.

I would encourage everyone else who feels remotely the same as me to pack it up in BC and head out to one of the neighbouring provinces. Lot's of jobs, cheaper living, lots of opportunity and you don't have to risk going to jail to earn an honest living, unlike BC, the original shamocracy ???? joke.

Good day, sirs/
  • 3

#19 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:33 AM

I apprehend our system of government just fine. I'm not saying the government isn't lawful and legitimate. Of course it is, this is how things work, by the examples I gave it's obvious I acknowledge that this is the way the westminster system functions. My point was that this government with this leader has not been voted on in a general election. That's just a fact. And the mandate of a government in that situation is not as strong as the alternative. Both are equally legal and constitutional, of course. But informally, the one situation is less democratic than the other.

And the fact is not relevant as it does not impinge upon legality, the constitution (including convention and usage) or history.

It is part and parcel of the Westminster system and is not remarkable unless you want to import a presidential system bias..

Democracy is a much wider concept than you posit.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#20 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,562 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:20 PM

Elections Canada is a federal agency that is involved with federal election spending and has nothing to do with this.


Fair enough but I think you get my main point
  • 0
"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/

#21 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:27 PM

And the fact is not relevant as it does not impinge upon legality, the constitution (including convention and usage) or history.

It is part and parcel of the Westminster system and is not remarkable unless you want to import a presidential system bias..

Democracy is a much wider concept than you posit.


Just because two things have the same legal status does not mean that they are equal in every regard. The law is not 100% of reality and it never will be. It might not be relevant in a theoretical court of law but it is relevant in the real world.
  • 2

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#22 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:47 PM

Fair enough but I think you get my main point

Nope.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#23 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:49 PM

Just because two things have the same legal status does not mean that they are equal in every regard. The law is not 100% of reality and it never will be. It might not be relevant in a theoretical court of law but it is relevant in the real world.

Only if one does not understand the real world/reality in which the government of BC operates.

We have much different understanding of what is relevant. Mine is based on actual reality.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#24 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:50 AM

Nope.


How about Elections BC, then? They are an independent enough body from the government, right?
  • 0

#25 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,572 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:11 AM

I'm glad we're not funding that godawful Doug on the Molson 'guyet' commercial.

That one is some annoying.
  • 1

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#26 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:59 AM

How about Elections BC, then? They are an independent enough body from the government, right?

Elections BC is independent but it has no jurisdiction over this sort of advertising and we are not in any time periods covered by the Elections Act.

That is why Dix has proposed legislation because there is no prohibition. He proposes having the Auditor General review government informational advertising.


In their first legislative session, Mr. Dix said a B.C. NDP government would pass legislation granting the Auditor-General the power to review and approve government-produced advertising, with orders to ban advertising featuring a cabinet minister or fostering a negative view of government critics and disallow non-essential government advertising in the pre-writ period.


“If an ad can’t meet this test, the government shouldn’t be running it,” said Mr. Dix.


At a scrum with reporters earlier in the day, Premier Christy Clark of the B.C. Liberal Party ruled out changes to ad policy and declined comment on the NDP policy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/government-ads-should-have-to-meet-non-partisan-standards-dix-says/article7635855/
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#27 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:54 AM

We have much different understanding of what is relevant. Mine is based on actual reality.


You wrote yourself in one of the posts above that leaders in this situation "have not secured the mandate of the ... public to lead the country [or province]." That is all that I have been saying. I never claimed or tried to claim that this was in any way unconstitutional or illegal or not legitimate, or against convention, or anything like that. If I had said that, it would have been incorrect and I acknowledge that, but that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing, like you said, that this government under this leader does not have the same sort of mandate that, for instance, the Liberals under Campbell did. To say that's not relevant...it's relevant to me as a voter. I'm sure it's relevant to other voters. That makes it relevant politically even if it would not be relevant legally.
  • 1

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#28 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:56 PM

You wrote yourself in one of the posts above that leaders in this situation "have not secured the mandate of the ... public to lead the country [or province]." That is all that I have been saying. I never claimed or tried to claim that this was in any way unconstitutional or illegal or not legitimate, or against convention, or anything like that. If I had said that, it would have been incorrect and I acknowledge that, but that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing, like you said, that this government under this leader does not have the same sort of mandate that, for instance, the Liberals under Campbell did. To say that's not relevant...it's relevant to me as a voter. I'm sure it's relevant to other voters. That makes it relevant politically even if it would not be relevant legally.

And my answer is so what if there is no mandate? This is not a presidential system and to import biases from that system leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of our system and how it operates. As has been pointed out in the Westminster system historically this is more the rule than the exception. Reality bites.

It may be relevant to those uninformed voters who do not understand our system but so what?
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#29 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:29 PM

And my answer is so what if there is no mandate? This is not a presidential system and to import biases from that system leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of our system and how it operates. As has been pointed out in the Westminster system historically this is more the rule than the exception. Reality bites.

It may be relevant to those uninformed voters who do not understand our system but so what?


What does it have to do with the presidential system? This situation would never come up in a presidential system, they have a succession protocol to take care of situations where a sitting leader is forced to step down or otherwise incapacitated. They didn't have a whole new convention when Nixon resigned. For someone to say, Ford is not as legitimate as Nixon because we never voted for him is ridiculous, because they did - he was on the ticket. So how am I importing biases?

On the other hand, Christy Clark was not even in politics last time we had an election. If Falcon or Abbott had won the convention I would feel he had more of a mandate because he was at least involved in that election and ran as an MLA and prominent Cabinet Minister. The Premier was running a radio show! And it's not that I'm biased against radio, I voted for Robin Adair. That's just something that I as a voter feel, and I don't think it makes me in any way ignorant or uninformed to feel that way.
  • 0

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#30 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:34 PM

Elections BC is independent but it has no jurisdiction over this sort of advertising and we are not in any time periods covered by the Elections Act.

That is why Dix has proposed legislation because there is no prohibition. He proposes having the Auditor General review government informational advertising.


In their first legislative session, Mr. Dix said a B.C. NDP government would pass legislation granting the Auditor-General the power to review and approve government-produced advertising, with orders to ban advertising featuring a cabinet minister or fostering a negative view of government critics and disallow non-essential government advertising in the pre-writ period.


“If an ad can’t meet this test, the government shouldn’t be running it,” said Mr. Dix.


At a scrum with reporters earlier in the day, Premier Christy Clark of the B.C. Liberal Party ruled out changes to ad policy and declined comment on the NDP policy.

http://www.theglobea...article7635855/




So all-in-all, it's really just a big gaping loophole in the system that the government is shameless and sleazy enough to exploit.
  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.