babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I think this is precisely what makes the ad effective. (Yes, I think it's effective.)
It's not targeted at people who know about or have opinions about issues such as trade or Dutch Disease; those people are, for the most part, not swing voters. People who support trade agreements and don't think Dutch Disease is a problem aren't going to vote for the NDP. People who oppose trade agreements and think Dutch Disease is a serious concern aren't going to vote for the Cons. The Cons know there's no point in running ads targeted at those people.
This ad is targeted at people who don't already have opinions about those issues. Its purpose is not to tell people that Mulcair holds views contrary to the ones they already have. Its purpose is to tell people that Mulcair holds certain views and, by the very fact that it is an attack ad, to imply that these views are wrong.
If people see a politician attacked for doing or believing something, they will assume that that something is bad. After all, you never see attack ads attacking politicians for creating jobs or loving puppies. The fact that the Cons are attacking Mulcair for supporting X thus will plant a seed in a lot of people's minds that X must be a bad thing, because, people will figure, if X were a good thing, why would the Cons be spending millions to remind Canadians that Mulcair supports it?
The ad isn't just seeking to influence people's views about Mulcair; it seeks to influence their views about Dutch Disease and trade, and to create a narrative where the consensus opinion is that Dutch Disease isn't a problem and that trade agreements are a good thing.
I also think that the ad is trying to gode Mulcair into making a serious misstep. The Cons want Mulcair to defend himself against the attacks by claiming that he's not actually against tar sands development, or that he's not actually against trade agreements. This would have two positive effects for the Cons: 1) it would contribute to their narrative that there is a consensus in support of unlimited tar sands development and trade agreements, and 2) it would create serious internal conflict within the NDP. Hopefully, Mulcair will avoid that trap.
Also, note that the Conservative strategists probably smile and laugh every time they read that their attack ads against Mulcair haven't been as harsh as the attacks on Dion or Ignatieff. That's exactly how they want the attacks to be perceived! Conservative strategists may be ruthless and cruel, but they know that it's politically disadvantageous to be seen as ruthless and cruel.
Perhaps Tom should respond with something like, "If Stephen Harper is prepared to lie to Canadians about me, what else is he lying to Canadians about?" As they say, the best defence is a good offence.
This is a really good point. Conservatives know the public is expecting harsh attack ads, and to do anything too harsh would be seen as "desperate".
Let's point out that they're desperate anyway. (I see a lot of headlines saying stuff like "Conservatives launch attacks as NDP passes them in polls".)
I disagree that the ads are effective, Architect, pretty much for the very reasons you say they are. Yes, they are targetted at people who don't pay attention to politics in an attempt to plant vauge notions in their heads of the NDP supporting foolish and radical economic theories. But even the most politically disengaged person doesn't exist in a vacuum. This is a very, very old characterisation of the NDP that has been drummed into the heads of the public since the party started. In fact, it is the most salient reason that the party has had such trouble building support all these decades. Until now.
To get where we've gotten, we've already had to overcome this, and I'm not saying the work is done, but obviously great progress has been made. It is precisely this impression of being against trade and development that people have been recently shrugging off to enable them to lend their support to the NDP, even amongst those who don't give this stuff much thought. People are seeing Mulcair's NDP as a new version of the party, and for the Cons to fall back on this and add nothing new just feels like beating a dead horse. Yesterday's criticism of yesterday's party. The public has jumped this hurdle already, and for the Cons to point to it and call it insurmountable makes them look foolish.
Sure, it might create a bit of doubt, but all it's liable to do is make people curious. Which is the real story? And curious is the last thing they should want to make people. Curious helps us. What they need to do is build a narrative that can allow people to be intellectually lazy and write the NDP off without thinking about it much. They need to smear the party in some easy-to-follow way that dovetails nicely with existing prejudices. Asking them to wind their thinking backwards and start believing again in prejudices that they recently abandoned gets their brains moving.
Although I do agree that they are trying to goad Mulcair into the traps you mentioned, but given the way the NDP has been performing lately, I trust them to avoid these handily.
I know this is probably known, but I don't, why are they allowed to produce attack ads when an election isn't for another three years? What the fuck? Attack ads should be by law restricted to election periods.
Will these attack ads work?...None of us will know until the next polls.
I don't even think we'll be able to be certain until a lot longer into the future than that. The Cons are using a much longer-term strategy against Mulcair and the NDP than they used against Dion or Ignatieff.
The Cons needed an attack strategy that would sink Dion and Ignatieff in the polls very quickly, because they knew that an election could be imminent at any time. As long as the Liberals were leading in the polls, the Cons had to be very worried about being brought down in the House and being defeated in the subsequent election.
By contrast, the Cons don't need to be ahead of the NDP in the polls now because there won't be an election until 2015 unless the Cons decide to have one. The Cons don't need to be ahead of the NDP now; they just need to be ahead of the NDP in 2015. This means that they don't feel a need to use the kind of "shock and awe" attacks that they used against Dion and Ignatieff, which were designed to have an immediate effect on the polls; they have the luxury of using a longer-term strategic approach.
I think the best response would be oblique, not direct. Release a bunch of ads aimed at presenting NDP policies, including the ones that the Con ads deal with, but not restricted to those and not addressed to Harper or the Cons, but to the public, as if we were making them anyway and this seemed like a good time.
Actually, priorities is a better word than policies. Feel-good stuff about what Mulcair's NDP wants to do for Canada, that references the Con ad in a general way but never seems like a public squabble.
I think this is right. "Oblique." Basically ignore the ads. Go positive. Talk about priorities, without getting too deep into policies (hard to present those in an ad, let alone forecast them for 2015). "Polluter Pay" should be in there as one of many priorities, because it's supported by most Canadians, it's the NDP position, and it pushes back on Harper. But in there, also talk about *pensions* (!!!) as an area where Conservatives are weak.
Canadians should not be bombarded with campaign propaganda until the writ is dropped. I don't care what party is in power. The endless campaigning insults people's intelligence and only serves to make the CPC look uncooperative and divisive. I hope they keep it up because I'm sure Canadians are getting sick of it and will bury them in the next election if they keep it up.
It's a mistake to presume that the attack ads are primarily designed to make soft NDP support vote Con.
They are well aware there is a irremediable number of voters that will not vote Con. The Con goal is primarily to scare off soft NDP votes to the moribund Liberals or the Green Party.
With FPTP, the principle is to divide the non-Con vote as evenly as possible, and this is the principle regardless of who is leading the opposition. This principle also explains the inordinate attention given by the overwhelmingly Harper-endorsing press to the failing Liberals.
Another objective of the Tory attack ads against Mulcair is to fire up their own base and get them to donate more $$ to the Conservative party.
Really? An objective of these attack ads is to "fire up the base", and generate revenue? Insightful.
Maybe that would be a mistake I'm not sure but I know for sure it is not something I proposed or presumed in my head either.
The NDP needs to do a "contrast" ad, and pretty damn soon. It should start out something along these lines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsrDr0Eu1KQ
The ads should also feature a centre-left economist denouncing Harper's austerity agenda at a time of weak and uncertain demand and approving of the NDP economic policy. In the second half of the ad, that is.
For all his talk of presenting a "structured opposition" to the Conservatives, Tom Mulcair's NDP has been pretty weak on the messaging front. There was the manufacturing loss controversy (which was blown waaaayyyy outta proportion by the corporate press), but aside from that I can't recall too many piercing economic themes he's injected into the national conversation. I mean, there appear to be no mentions of "shared prosperity" on the Federal NDP site. That's a basic - and effective - theme the NDP has to emphasize.
Not only that but there are no spending limits and no reporting requirements.
I don't see a link to this here yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIH-dknpjVQ
"NDP counters Tory attack ads with video of their own":http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ndp-counter...
The NDP's and Mulcair's position that the economy should be equitably benefiting people from all provinces has been very successful. Since Mulcair took his strong and principled stance regarding the economy, that Dutch Disease is hurting the economy outside of non-renewable resource based industries, the NDP's poll numbers have been great, especially outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
So far it seems to me that supporting the idea that the economic well being of Canadians should be pursued for all Canadians, regardless of the province they live in, seems like a big vote winner for the NDP.
If the main issue in the next election is equity and fairness for all Canadians, which party has the best chance of winning more seats?
I liked the NDP's repsonse...Simple and to the point....But they need more ads....Maybe they need some more 'attack' in these ads,though.
It's a good first start. The NDP needs to hammer away that this is a debate about shared prosperity vs hoarded propserity and that the CONs are the party of trickle-down economics.
A political sparing match that only a few political junkies follow isn't effective messaging.
I suppose the new ad is fine as far as attack ads go. I just don't want these "the-other-guys-are-bad-without-saying-why-I'm-good" spots to become the norm. Otherwise the public will just roll its eyes at all the politicians.
Maybe the NDP can use Harper's proclamation that Calgary is the greatest city in Canada to help show Canadians what the Conservatives are all about?
Stephen Harper: Calgary Is The 'Greatest City' In CanadaI'm sure it would resonate with some but it would alienate Calgary...Come to think of it,that wouldn't be anything that the NDP should worry about...Alberta is the last place in the country the NDP will gain support.
BTW,should anyone be surprised with Harper making this remark?...I mean,the man and his party are Alberta seperatist sympathizers and Alberta is the most hopelessly conservative province in Canada..it shouldn't be a shock.
Calgary and Harper deserve each other..and if it wasn't for Alberta,Conservatives would be a party with fringe support and rightfully would remain what they truly are -- a fringe party.