Here's a new TV ad by the Conservatives attacking Mulcair "radical" economic ideas, which include: putting a price on carbon, expressing concern about the observable and proven phenomenon of 'Dutch Disease,' and opposing corporate trade deals...
Also, here is the French version. The main difference seems to be no mention of 'Dutch Disease'...
Sorry, slight correction: they don't say his ideas are "radical," only "scary" and "dangerous"...
This will play well with the Conservative base. I just hope that they want to go into the next election waving the corporate flag. I think that message has little room to grow and resonate with anyone that isn't already a Conservative hard liner. I don't even think that it will shore up the soft supporters they are shedding.
I'm not sure how this ad will be effective with anyone who was even considering voting NDP.
Wow. It's about policy.
I'm excited and disappointed.
I'm disappointed because I expected a character attack. "Mulcair is a secret separatist from France" or some other bullshit. I thought that kind of smear would backfire so horrendously, and would rally ex-Liberals to our cause out of frustration with the attack ads. It's almost a shame they decided to make this about economics.
And I'm excited that this is it. The showdown between the left and right on the economy we've been waiting for. I've always thought Canada was fundamentally a progressive left-ward country that celebrated legacies of NDP provincial governments and NDP-Liberal coalitions. 2015 will be a referendum on the economy, and we can win it.
Or maybe I'm disappointed... because progressives ARE divided, and Conservatives DID win a majority. It's possible that this country HAS bought the Washington consensus that slashing social security to pay for the tax giveaways to corporations will be good for the economy. Maybe liberals hate us "wild eyed radicals" and "dirty fucking hippies" enough to ignore the economic damage from big oil, big lobbyists, and big media.
Or maybe I'm excited that the Conservatives are imploding at the exact moment that the NDP is rising, and people are about to finally try something different.
In other words... this is a challenge of global importance.
They are watering the seed of the NDP being unable to manage the economy. The personal attacks will come later.
The Cons are on a permanent war footing - war against the Opposition, Canadians, the environment, etc.....
How should the NDP counter the notion that a carbon tax = higher consumer tax? I think this will resonate the most with soft-NDP voters
Also, I love the scary synth music in the French version
edit: double post
How should the NDP counter the notion that a carbon tax = higher consumer tax? I think this will resonate the most with soft-NDP voters
The NDP isn't proposing a carbon tax - which is one way of honestly responding. Secondly, any carbon tax or cap-and-trade system can be designed so that government doesn't keep any of the money it generates. I'm not entirely sold on this idea since there are public costs associated with emissions reduction and adaptation to climate change. The NDP could say that it's open to cap-and-dividend as an approach so long as we are putting a price on carbon dioxide.
Pollunter pay is how you sell it, the idea of polluters paying for thier own mess appeals to the Canadian public and it comes off as fair. Also Cap and Trade isn't a consumer sales tax. Also Dion lost on the Carbon Tax because he lacked crediblity on the issue and wasn't able to successful tie it into the economy the way Mulcair is.
Also Dion had terrible charisma, wasn't effective in english, and who knows what other issues the public had with him.
Maybe Harper's close ally Christy Clark can put in her two cents worth about the evils or a carbon tax...or on second thought.
Okay I've watched and it doesn't concerning, its weak and lame and its doubtful it will bother NDP voters. I just don't get why they bothered putting it together. Kind of anticlimatic.
Its starting to occur to me that the Tory attack machine maybe be majorly over inflated. The attacks only worked at all on Dion and Iggy because they were bad leaders.
In fact I'm starting to question wheather the attacks ads were thier down fall at all. Iggy didn't crash until the debates, can we be certain of how much the attack ads had an effect?
Keep in mind that attack ads seldom go unanswered. Even if the candidates don't say anything, the media does.
The problem with Ignatieff is that he did call Canada's reputation for peacekeeping "bogus". That we were "disgusting" on human rights, and would rather "bitch" about America. When you add that to his reputation on Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not surprising a lot of Liberals came to the NDP. The attack was based in reality.
The problem with Dion is that he actually was proposing a huge tax overhaul (as opposed to cap-and-trade -- advocated by Jack Layton, Thomas Mulcair, and at one time, Steven Harper). When you add that to the fact that Dion was the environmental minister when the Liberals did nothing about Kyoto, it's not surprising that the Liberals lost support left AND right. The attack was based in reality.
And it's the same for Mulcair. There *IS* a kernal of truth to them: Mulcair said big oil is overheating our economy, and should pay. But we already saw the "dutch disease" play out over the past few weeks, and the consensus is (hate him or love him) Mulcair stood his ground and kept on target. The defense was based in reality.
I don't want to put too much faith in Mulcair being "right". But he's right. And he's been consistent about the environment. And he's eerily good at avoiding mistakes. The "dutch disease" is a stronger thing to pin your career to than Dion's "green shift" or Ignatieff's "Lesser Evil".
Being "right" isn't everything, but it's a good place to start. The other keys are:
Rightwing pundit Gerry Nicholls thinks the new Tory attack is very weak and rates it 4 out 10.
http://gerrynicholls.blogspot.ca/2012/06/rating-new-tory-attack-ad.html
"
But the messaging in the ad is vague and confusing; meaning people just won't get it.
What I mean is every political ad should start from scratch and basically assume the voter knows nothing
Yet this attack spot more or less assumes voters know what “Dutch Disease” means; it assumes they know what a carbon tax is; it assumes they know about trade policy.
And those are all massive assumptions.
Plus, it’s just plain confusing when the words, “Make them pay now for what they are doing” flash on the screen. What the heck does that mean? Did Mulcair say that? If he did, so what? Who are “they” and what exactly are they “doing?"
How does all this lead viewers to conclude that Mulcair has “risky theories” and “dangerous economic experiments.”
It doesn’t."
I like Gerry Nicholls
Well, well. I guess the Cons decided they couldn't afford to wait any longer, despite having failed to find their magic bullet to wound Mulcair, but seriously? They're blowing their money on this? If this were a backyard basketball game, I'd be telling them to take that weak shit off the court so some real ballers could play.
God, I am loving this.
In fact I'm starting to question wheather the attacks ads were thier down fall at all. Iggy didn't crash until the debates, can we be certain of how much the attack ads had an effect?
That's a very good observation. However, one thing the attack ads did was to raise everyone's expectations of Ignatieff to unachievably high levels, given that he was portrayed as the elite internationalist who was just visiting. So, when he turned out to be rather ordinary and unspectacular in the debates, he was doubly hurt due to people's high expectations of this just visiting superstar.
Some people who don't pay too much attention to politics said after the ads ran, "Well, forget voting for this American." Not everyone is particularly well informed. So, when something is repeated ad nausiem, it will have an affect. I think the ads on Mulcair could be effective for the Conservatives. Its theme of "We can't afford Mulcair's NDP" is similar to the pocketbook themes that were used against Dion (though character attacks were also used against Dion).
Have these been put on TV? Or are they just on the internet? I had predicted that they wouldn't start a serious campaign against the NDP (aka putting ads on TV) until after the Libs chose their leader, since I felt that they wanted to gauge who the most dangerous opposition would be first. However, perhaps I'm wrong. If so, it means that the NDP has graduated for now to being the biggest perceived threat to the Conservatives. Makes sense given that Rae is out of the picture now (the remaining Libs, Trudeau included, really are not a threat to the Conservatives.)
Mulcair was discussing polluter pay on Sunday Morning.
.
I heard most of the interview and thought he sounded quite good; an absolute contrast to Stephen Harper.
CTV had the MP for Veteran's Affairs (Blaney? he looks like death warmed over...) talking about Harper's appearance in Quebec, and he tried to be optimistic and cheerful, but fell flat, in my opinion. 
CTV had the MP for Veteran's Affairs (Blaney? he looks like death warmed over...) talking about Harper's appearance in Quebec, and he tried to be optimistic and cheerful, but fell flat, in my opinion.
West Block with Tom (Hi-there!) Clark had a special on Peter Stoffer
http://www.globalnews.ca/video/index.html?v=HJmBA4hamee4svHPwHDFKw79F_ZM...
ads were on TV here last night on Global. i'll change the channel now every time they come on. freakin sickening the American style politics they're attempting to play IMV.
why don't the ND's have some ads pointing out Conservatives are trying to change the channel on their dirty deeds and fiscal mismanagement?
that french spot is incredibly unconvincing, almost to the point of reinforcing mulcair's popularity. low production values, a straight-up political smear style to it, information that just seems basically uncredible, and all from a source that virtually all francophones distrust basically. like when it cuts to steve harper, he looks worse than mulcair. i doubt the tories are going to go out like suckers, but this augers ill for the quebec side of the campaign, that's for sure.
as a personal aside, i can't even stand the look of harper, that shit-eating smirk, that idiotic hair, the knowledge of what he stands for. for people who can speak french, these ones are old but fantastic:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xo6r6_laflaque-anti-harper-anti-feminis...
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.ca/2012/06/ndp-prepares-counterstrike.html?m=1
Oddly this information comes from a Liberal, but it appears that the NDP does plan to fight back and has began a fundraising drive to help do that. I doubt they'll wait for the money to come rolling in to fire back of course, but lots of donations will allow for a longer and bigger response.
I look forward to it.
The attacks only worked at all on Dion and Iggy because they were bad leaders. In fact I'm starting to question wheather the attacks ads were thier down fall at all. Iggy didn't crash until the debates, can we be certain of how much the attack ads had an effect?
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV1_Agpo0Ag]I think the irony in Iggy saying "you gotta show up" really helped sink his career as leader.[/url]
The only consulation is that regardless of these attack ads,those who hate Harper will continue to hate Harper..No amount of attack ads will change this.
His half-hearted attempt to 'woo' Quebec confirms it.
If Harper wants people to warm to his party and even consider to support him and it,it's pretty simple.
Scrap the omnibus bills,become moderate,compromise and work with the opposition....This is never going to happen and this is why Harper's latest desperate acts are all in vain.
If I was Mulcair,I wouldn't change a thing and I wouldn't be losing any sleep.
What is really starting to piss me off is that every time the Tories launch an attack I receive an email from the NDP looking for a donation. The latest one was from rebecca Blaikie.
On another note, on Monday Ms. C. and I each received a letter from the NB PC party requesting donations. Cheeky bastards!
Yet this attack spot more or less assumes voters know what “Dutch Disease” means; it assumes they know what a carbon tax is; it assumes they know about trade policy.
And those are all massive assumptions.
Plus, it’s just plain confusing when the words, “Make them pay now for what they are doing” flash on the screen. What the heck does that mean? Did Mulcair say that? If he did, so what? Who are “they” and what exactly are they “doing?"
How does all this lead viewers to conclude that Mulcair has “risky theories” and “dangerous economic experiments.”
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.
http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2012/03/07/new-issue-of-anthropo...
This blog post has given me insight into why the liberals fell in 2011 and an idea of how the game of politics is continueing to be played out.
When the minority hit the Liberals were forced into short term tactics by both the situation and by the opposing players, who used long term tactics to over time build an advantage.
Lets start off with the Martin Parliament. The Liberals had to make a series of short term deals with other parties in order for thier minority to survive, with the possiblity of electoral punishment for failure. The NDP did not have to balance of power so it had no reason to fear electoral punishment and could afford to develop a long term stratgedy, it didn't have to engage in constant deal making, freeing it to make deals only went it benifited its long term electoral goals.
Also the expectations for a third party NDP leader were far less then a Liberal Prime Minister which afford Jack the ability to focus on much more long term plans then Martin could.
If the NDP had origionally had the balance of power, greater pressure for intinial concord or other long term deal would have occurred allowing the Liberals to develop long term stradegies for winning the next election instead of short term focus of keeping the minority stabalized.
The election of 2006 was a small immediate payoff, but the long term payoff for the NDP would be great.
The Steven Harper Minorities would be even worse for the Liberals. Because the idealogical differences between the NDP and the Tories there was no strong pressure for the two to work together, except when the NDP found it to be advantagous to do so. The Liberals did not share this luxury and residual anger over the sponsorship scandal as well as finicial difficulties (Jean changes to party fundraising its self pressed to the liberals at times towards short term tactics), forced the Liberals to decide between likely electoral punishment or giving into Tory demands, which in the immediate term prevented said punishment allowed the hope that things could turn around.
The long term price was a drop in respect for the liberals and forcing short term tactics on the Liberals part and again both NDP and Tories were free to focus on the long term.
Then the Tories tried to remove per vote substidy which while costing the Tories the most in the short term as they had the most votes, would have a strong payoff as the other Parties, especially the Liberals, were dependant upon it.
This forced the Liberals who were most concerned of the parties to use somekind of desperation short term plan.
This plan turned out to be the Coalition idea that invovled granting the NDP major concessions that no Liberal party had ever granted before, such as cabinate positions.
This had the effect of serving the NDP's long term goals by removing major pyschology obsticles in the NDP way, such as the belief that the NDP could never govern, that winning required too much of a vote shift (the possiblity of coalition lowered the bar), that the NDP was unfit to be in government (after all why invite people into your government that you don't believe capable), and it also helped put the NDP on Quebec radar along with Mulcair's win of course.
Still this could have given the Liberals the a chance for a long term stradgety and allowed them to rebuild crediblity, except that they had learned to fear Jack Layton's political skills and feared they were legitamizing the NDP (the damage was done already) and so under Iggy the made the quick and poor idea to back out, which forced them to make a series of short term decisions, while the NDP kept building and planning.
Even the choice to give Iggy a cornation was a short term tactic forced by the circumstances which cost the Liberals because Iggy did not,have the Leadership race as an excuse for his absences in Parliament.
Then came 2011 where the short term decisions really came to roost and the long term tactics of both Tories and the NDP payed off.
The Liberals over the years focused on survival in Minorities, the NDP focused on building the foundation and building upon that foundation and strengthing it.
So now that the Liberals are in third can they relax and focus on the long term while the NDP has to focus on the short term?
Nope. The Harper Majority changed that. The NDP does not risk bringing the government down and so it can oppose and develop long term goals with out being hit with immediate concerns of minority survival freeing the NDP,up to consolidate gains and expand them.
The Liberals on the hand lack the inherit purpose of the NDP which could sustain the NDP through lean times, so the Liberals are forced to find short term means to sustance moral and support or risk give into depression and irrevelence.
The fact the NDP is eclipsing the Liberals so much only pushing the Liberals harder into short term tactics.
Things like glamming into a leader because of some hint of personal popularity without taking into account thier long term prospects and baggage is an example of short term tactics.
Bob Ray was an examlpe of this as was ironically the push on Ray not to run when he didn't appear as shiny. Immediate gratification.
The sudden glamming around Trudeau is the same, his polling creating the rush of hope and ego massaging that blinds the Liberals to major flaws such as a lack of major qualifications and achievements, poll flaws, the hypothetical nature of the question. Its also increases the likely hood of punishing,Trudeau when he doesn't live up to expectationsm wiping out thier investment, especially in the case where he loses seats.
It also distracts from important structural changes the Liberals need as the can to Trudeau as to why they don't need them.
This is also shown in the Ontario minority in different ways with Andrea and Hudak forcing Dalton to use mostly short term tactics, for example Hudak pushing Dalton into promising not to make a coalition or long term accord with Andrea during the election (Dalton's worst promise). I'll save that anaylsis for later.
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.
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.
They're not supposed to be cruel, the goal isn't hurt the NDP or steal lefty voters, its to cause fear in blue grits and take a bigger chuck off of the Liberal vote to fight off the so called "socialist hordes".
The side benifit being boosted fundrasing for both Tories and New Democracts thanks to polarization.
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.
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.
I agree, but there is no law against them.
Will these attack ads work?...None of us will know until the next polls.
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 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.
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.
.... I think that message has little room to grow and resonate with anyone that isn't already a Conservative hard liner. I don't even think that it will shore up the soft supporters they are shedding.
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 $$ to the Conservative party.
Another objective of the Tory attack ads against Mulcair is to fire up their own base and get them to donate more $$ to the Conservative party.
Really? An objective of these attack ads is to "fire up the base", and generate revenue? Insightful.
.... I think that message has little room to grow and resonate with anyone that isn't already a Conservative hard liner. I don't even think that it will shore up the soft supporters they are shedding.
It's a mistake to presume that the attack ads are primarily designed to make soft NDP support vote Con.
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.
