Election ad review: Ready (and repeating vs busting the narrative)

After months of the Conservatives carpet-bombing the air waves with an ad declaring Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau just not ready, the Liberals finally responded with an ad of their own yesterday: Ready.

While many initially dismissed the Conservative ad as lame and ineffective (as they have every ad they've released for a decade, only to later concede they were devastatingly effective) I immediately saw it as a very effective piece because it zeroed it on a doubt most Canadians already have: is Trudeau ready to be Prime Minister? Very smart was the line at the end -- I'm not saying no forever, but now now -- which acknowledged many Canadians do like the guy so a hard negative attack wouldn't work. The goal was to plant doubts he was ready to govern -- at least right now. Hard not to argue they were successful.

The Liberal response ad was released Saturday, the day before the writ is expected to drop:


It's not a bad ad -- I'd subtitle it "not ready my ass." Trudeau looks comfortable and confident, and talks about what actually matters to middle class Canadians: pocket book issues around jobs and the economy, which is where our laser focus needs to be as this campaign begins. It's a decent ad, but it left me wanting a little more. I'd have liked to have seen it months ago, and I hope it's a big buy because releasing it as the writ drops minimizes any free media coverage.

Now, on Twitter many Conservatives and one other quickly lept up to gleefully to accuse Liberals of breaking the first rule of crisis communications: never repeat the opponent's message. And that is a rule. If someone asks  if you're a crook, you don't answer "I'm not a crook" and proceed to tell them why. I think they're off base here though, and I'll tell you why.

Is Justin ready IS the question many Canadians have about Trudeau. Is Justin ready to lead a G7 country is the question many have had since he was elected Liberal leader. He has high name recognition -- people feel like they grew up with him -- and high likability. I've maintained from the start though, even through those high polls, that at some point Canadians would ask OK, I like the guy, but is he ready to be PM?

Getting over that hump has been his challenge from the start. The Conservative ads were effective because they recognized that feeling was out there, and they stoked it. So whether or not those ads existed, Trudeau at some point needed to address this issue and convince Canadians that yes, he is ready. The carpet bombing made it necessary to take it on even more directly, rather than just trying to show it with words and deeds.

Some have said Trudeau's response should have simply been, in short, Harper sucks. That wouldn't address the problem though. There are definitely votes to peel off Harper, but right now most of them aren't coming to us. Liberals need to again become the default not-Harper choice; right now we're not. Just pulling votes off Harper is a waste of time until enough Canadians DO see Trudeau as ready to govern and lead, and not just a good guy.

However, in closing, I will say that I hope the Liberals abandon this positive-only pledge. It's naive. Don't go personally negative, but contrast and looking at the record of our opponents and the emptiness of their promises is both fair and effective. There is no virtue, electoral or otherwise, in clinging to some sort of positive high ground. People say they don't like the hard stuff, but you don't win points for not doing it, and those ads do influence their voting decision even if they won't admit it.

Trudeau is a boxer; well, it's time to suit up and get in the ring. Don't pull your punches. Game on.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thoughts on the new Liberal/Justin Trudeau ads

As mentioned earlier, the Liberal Party of Canada this morning released two new ads featuring Justin Trudeau that will be running on television and online, one in English and one in French (you can donate here to help keep them on the air). Both are similar in tone, although only the English one responds directly to the personally negative Conservative ad campaign.

We needed to respond

Content aside, I’m pleased that we've responded at all. And we had to, for several reasons.

For one, Liberals have been asked several times in recent years to donate in order to respond to Conservative attack ads. When ads were ran against Bob Rae, the party asked for money for a response; Liberals donated, the party never responded. At the time I outlined why a response would be problematic, but those Liberals that donated certainly expected one. We also voted at the last biennial to create a “Strong Start Fund” to give the next leader a coffer to allow him or her to respond to the inevitable Conservative attacks, and have been asked to donate to it regularly. And Liberals responded to another donation request after the Conservative ads launched. So just to keep faith with Liberal donors, a response was mandatory.

And secondly, Liberals are jumpy after having watched two leaders be savaged by Conservative attack ads with little meaningful response from the party. While we can debate for hours just what impact the ad campaigns had on the electoral fortunes of our last two leaders, the psychological impact on Liberals has been clear. So for our own sanity, a response was necessary.

The ads themselves

The contrast between the Conservative and Liberal ads is jarring, and deliberately so. The English ad makes the contrast obvious by directly pivoting off the Conservative attack, and offering a different style, tone and approach, and a different choice for Canadians.

Based on Twitter reaction, those in the Ottawa bubble have been thrown for a bit of a loop. They've been conditioned to expect cheap sound effects, sarcastic voice-overs and personal attacks. They don’t know what to make of this positive tone, this lack of flash and whiz-bang, just a leader talking directly to Canadians, a son and a father just asking for a chance. It’s different than what they’re used to.

The bubble crowd are not the target audience though. Canadians are, the Canadians who don’t watch question period every afternoon or PowerPlay every evening. The same people the Conservatives are targeting with their ads.

We all know that attack ads can be effective, so I like the deliberate mocking of the Conservative ads – Canadians can agree you’re right, those ads are ridiculous, we do deserve better. The classroom setting says I’m not going to apologize for being a teacher, and will remind Canadians of positive school memories – most of us liked our teachers. For many of us, they were role models and mentors.

Some will say the Liberals should have fought fire with fire. I think those people would be wrong. Let’s remember what this is about: defining Justin Trudeau. I wrote last week about voter impression polling numbers, which showed many Canadians have already formed an impression of Trudeau, and one that’s largely positive. The Conservatives want to reach those that haven’t made up their minds yet with a negative message – he’s in over his head. The Liberals want to reach those same people with a positive message – I’m a regular guy, a family man like you, who loves his country and just wants a chance to serve.

Both sides have now made their cases effectively, and we’ll watch in the weeks and months ahead to see how Canadians respond. And Canadians will watch to see how the leaders perform. Impressions will be formed, and solidified.

It will be some time be know how effective these respective campaigns will be. The Liberals, though, have finally gotten off the bench.

Game on.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

New Liberal ads are online

The Liberals and Justin Trudeau now have ads of their own, and they stand in stark contrast to the negative Conservative personal attack ads of last week. Take a look:



And a French ad that's a little different visually:

 

Have to run; I'll have some thoughts later.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

London radio station's yanked CPC/Trudeau parody ad is back online -- without CPC logos

On Thursday morning a London radio station, FM96 (which may or may not have London's best rock) uploaded a humorous video parody of the Conservative Party of Canada's anti-Justin Trudeau attack ads. Essentially, the "Conservatives" warned electing Trudeau meant "four years of your wife wanting to sleep with the Prime Minister." Better, therefore, to stick with Stephen Harper.

A humorous parody of over the top attack ads, to be sure, and one that was widely shared on social media during the day. Until late afternoon, when the video was suddenly pulled from YouTube. Clicking play left one with the error message: "Removed by user."

So, why was the ad removed? Did the morning shock jocks have second thoughts in the bright light of late afternoon? Were they pressured or threatened into taking it down? Several tweets to @FM96Rocks asking why the video was taken down went unanswered, although the dead video link remained online on the station's blog:

Then, Thursday night, Peter Mansbridge played a clip of the "briefly online" parody ad on the At Issue segment of CBC's The National, and all and sundry found it amusing. And suddenly, a tweet from @FM96Rocks referenced the CBC appearance and included a new link to the video, not mentioning its temporary removal.

And here it is, online once more:




Except, not quite. The eagle-eyed among you who watched the first parody video that was uploaded will note several edits were made to the new version. For example, the original contained a Conservative logo and authorization text, like that seen in the image below. This is missing from the new version.

Also missing is a line saying the ad was authorized by "Conservative nerds for Stephen Harper" or something along those lines.

So, why the edits? Did the Conservative Party claim copyright and raise the specter of legal action for using their logo and authorization text? I have e-mailed a query on that topic to Conservative Party director of Communications Fred Delorey:

Hello Fred, 

On Thursday morning, a London radio station aired a parody of the Conservative Party's recent Justin Trudeau-related ad campaign. Late Thursday afternoon, that video was "removed by user" from YouTube. Thursday night, it was reuploaded by the radio station, but edited to, among other things, remove a Conservative logo and authorization text. 

Can you confirm if the Conservative Party contacted the radio station about this ad and, if so, if the party requested or required the video to be removed and/or edits made? 

Sincerely, 

Jeff Jedras 

I will report on any response I receive from Fred. I will note, though, that a copyright claim by the CPC would be ironic, given that their attack ads used footage without the permission of those that created it. Something which seemed not to bother the Conservatives.

Speaking of which, some of the footage they used was shot at a fundraiser for the Canadian Liver Foundation, a fine group which could use your support, so consider making a donation today.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Justin Trudeau won’t be so easy to ill-define

The day after Justin Trudeau was elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, as predictably as the sun rises in the East, the Conservatives did what the Conservatives do – they released negative personal attack ads. It’s all they know how to do.

And it has worked for them before (see Dion, Stephen and Ignatieff, Michael). Will they make it a hat trick? Time will tell, but it was interesting, as these ads were released, to read a new poll from Ekos. I said the other day to ignore the polls, and that advice holds, particularly the horse race numbers. But in the context of these attacks – and the Conservative attempt to again negatively define a Liberal leader before he can define himself – the job approval numbers merit examination.

Trudeau registered 36 per cent approval and 26 per cent disapproval, for a +10 margin. Not a runaway freight train, but significantly ahead of Stephen Harper, at 28 per cent approval and 50 per cent disapproval (-22) and Thomas (Tom) Mulcair at 26 approve, 30 per cent disapprove (-4). Harper’s negative number is quite striking, but otherwise take these numbers with a grain of salt – Trudeau just had his first real day on the job yesterday, after all. His opponents aren't starting from positions of strength, however.

One measure that is more durable (and interesting) though is the "don’t know" response on the approval rating. Trudeau was at just 34.6 per cent, down steadily from 60 per cent when the leadership race was gearing-up last September.

What does this show? Trudeau is rapidly becoming less of a blank slate. For better or worse (mostly for the better at the moment) two-thirds of Canadians have already formed their impression of him. As Ekos president Frank Graves put it, “more than 5 million voters have a view on him who didn't at the outset of the race.” Which means it will be more difficult for any coordinated Conservative attempt to cement a negative impression to be effective.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have largely given Mulcair a pass, but he remains surprisingly undefined with Canadians, with 40.7 per cent answering don’t know with regards to his job approval. For that number to be that high after one year as leader of the official opposition, with all the media attention that entails, and with the Liberals lacking a permanent leader, is astounding (and a credit to the effectiveness of interim Liberal leader in Bob Rae). Even in Quebec, Mulcair’s home province, home of the Orange Wave, where Mulcair was a popular provincial environment minister, 44.2 per cent answered don’t know. He remains remarkably undefined, which speaks to the work he still has to do.

Luckily for Mulcair and the NDP, the Conservatives don’t seem in a hurry to step in and fill that void with a negative impression – they’re more focused on Trudeau and the Liberals (which is telling). But as the numbers show, that will be a rather more difficult challenge.

Which isn’t to say it’s not impossible. For the Liberals and Trudeau, continuing to drive down that don’t know number, and replacing it with a positive (and substantive) impression, must be a focus.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Quoted on affairs Liberal

Postmedia's Lee Berthiaume filed the obligatory Justin Trudeau and the Liberal leadership story yesterday, and I'm quoted. First, in defence of charisma:

 "Charisma can be seen as superficial, but it is important," said Liberal blogger Jeff Jedras. "I'm looking for someone who can go into small groups in small towns across the country and win Liberals over one by one. And in that sense he's far more a natural politician than Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff were." 

 And secondly, on the need to marry that charisma with substance:

"I still want to have a conversation about policy," said blogger Jedras, before acknowledging: "It's one factor to be weighed amongst the others. But what he brings to the table obviously is a lot and that's weighed in."

That second thought came out a little more awkwardly than I'd have liked, but basically my point was while we shouldn't dismiss charisma as superficial and unimportant, it does need to be married with substance to be successful. Should Trudeau run he's going to have to prove the doubters of his alleged lack of substance wrong, and before deciding who to support I, for one, would want to know see his thinking on policy. But having the charisma tool in his toolbox, if you will, is a head-start few will have. Real success, though, will mean building on that. (Also, see my earlier blog, The case for Justin Trudeau and a two-election strategy)

Also, earlier this week Susan Delacourt of the Toronto Star referenced an earlier blog I wrote about the Conservative Party's anti-Bob Rae attack ads in a piece she wrote analysing his decision not to seek the permanent Liberal Party leadership:

One astute Liberal blogger, Jeff Jedras, saw the method in the Conservative attacks. The ads, Jedras wrote, were an attempt to fuel internal tension in the Liberal party — to get the party arguing over whether to respond or not. And on that score, the strategy worked: the Liberals, despite their vows to never again leave a leader undefended against attack ads, couldn’t agree on whether to invest precious resources in a formal reply. Why would the Liberals spend money to defend the record of a former political opponent in Ontario?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Rae ad a well-aimed Conservative grenade into the Liberal tent

Proving that you don’t need to ignore or even bend election law to execute a savvy political strategy and tie your opponents in knots, the attack ad launched Sunday night by the Conservatives against interim Liberalleader Bob Rae is clever strategy on many levels. Most of all, it’s a well-aimed grenade into the Liberal tent.

There are many motivations for the Conservatives to launch this attack, and launch it now. For one, it helped distract attention a bit from yesterday’s Toronto-Danforth by-election, where the Conservatives (as expected) got creamed with a paltry 5.4 per cent of the vote, barely ahead of the Green Party. And with more and more damaging revelations coming out every day about the vote suppression scandal, it gives the chattering classes something else to chatter about for a few days. Such as why they’re attacking the interim leader of the third party instead of the official opposition (don’t worry, they’ll get to it).

But more than any of that, the ad is designed to provoke a response from the Liberal Party, and get them to either spend limited resources on a response and/or split the party against each other arguing over what the response, if any, should be.

The Conservatives know that, after financing multi-million dollar ad campaigns that helped destroy the last two Liberal leaders out of the gate, party members are loathe to let it happen again. At January’s convention, members even endorsed the creation of a leader defence fund. The Conservatives know that when attacked, we’re going to demand a forceful response. And they know, fund or no, their war chest still dwarfs ours.

The Conservatives also know that Rae’s refusal to firmly say one way or another if he will seek the permanent leadership is a source of contention within Liberal circles. Those that seek a fair playing field for the leadership race don’t want to see the party-financed leader’s office used to give one candidate a leg-up over the others. There are reports he has alreadydecided to run.

This ad seeks to divide the party between those who will want to see the war chest opened to defend Rae and his record, against those who think using our limited party resources to defend an interim leader who will either not be here in a year, or who may be one of several candidates for the permanent leadership, is unfair and improper. It’s rather a win-win scenario for the Conservatives. Either we deplete our war chest or we fight against each other. Ideally, for them, we’ll do both.

And it also forces Liberals to agitate for a clear answer from Rae on the leadership question: either he definitively rules out a run for the permanent job and continues to ably serve-out his term as interim leader, allowing other contenders to begin organizing. Or he says he will seek the permanent position, and resigns the interim office. As I’ve said before, Ithink it’s time the Liberal executive demand clarity on this issue.

But we need to recognize what the Conservatives are doing here. They’re trying to shift the terms of the debate and get us to fight on a field that’s advantageous to them; we shouldn’t acquiesce.

I support a response, but it must be measured and appropriate, and play to our strengths and our strategy. There are several natural responses. I don’t think ads defending Rae’s record as the NDP premier of Ontario in the 1990s make sense at this point for any number of reasons. Which isn’t to say don’t correct the record and talk it up, just don’t do an ad buy.

You could go negative on Harper and the Conservatives, and that option would find wider support within the party. The question is though, would it be particularly effective? I have my doubts. Harper is a known quantity at this point, and opinions on the Conservatives are reasonably set. We’ve run many ads against them over the years, and I’m doubtful another ad pointing out their failings is likely to be impactful. Which isn’t to say they don’t have their place, let’s just be strategic about it.

What would be impactful, and I believe the Liberal Party is working on this as part of our renewal and rebuilding process, is to present a credible and trusted alternative to the Conservatives, and to the NDP. We can run all the anti-Harper or anti-Conservative ads in the world, but until we convince Canadians we’re a good alternative most will stick with the devil they know. Canadians don’t care about the Ottawa back and forth. They may not love the Conservatives, but they see them as competent managers and certainly don’t hate them the way partisans do.

So any response we launch can’t just be aimed at making Liberal partisans feel better about Conservative attack ads. That’s a waste of money. We need to get outside the bubble and connect with what Canadians really care about -- their families, their day to day lives -- and speak to that, not the scandal du jour. We need to erode confidence in the Harper Conservatives as competent managers deserving of the public trust, while positioning the Liberals as the party that cares about the issues Canadians care about and is deserving of their trust.

Craft a response with those goals in mind and I’m on board. We need to pick our own battleground. Let the Conservatives dictate it and we’ve lost already.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We've got videos

It's been a very disconnected day for me, so watching tv yet and no time to follow twitter. Caught tweet coverage of the Harper launch and Ignatieff's no-coalition statement when I got up this morning, and that's it. I'm sure I'd have gotten an e-mail or something if someone's bus had run into a river, so I trust things are alright on the national campaign trail.

In Vancouver Island North we were busy today staring to get the campaign office set up, and doing a campaign college for our campaign team and core volunteers. We had a lot of people out, a lot of good questions asked and information exchanged. Right now the stress is getting the office up and running (be a few days for phone, web and tv); once that's done I'll feel better. The team is coming together though and we're keeping Mike Holland busy with canvassing.

Off to go build signs in a bit; just taking a dinner break. But I see the Liberals have put out a few videos today. The first is in English, and in the style of the earlier economy ad it's Michael on a simple white background talking directly to Canadians. It's called Your Family, Your Liberals and is mainly positive, through with a values contrast/shot at Harper. I like the "this election s about you" messaging. The family focus reminds me of Christy Clark's families first leadership campaign. I'm still processing the ad (I like to let them percolate a night); I like the focus but I'm not keen on the line about personal attacks. It feels whiny; people don't care if Harper is mean to you. Otherwise, I like the message. And I think this ad is also about putting Michael in front of Canadians in a positive context; he comes off well.

This next ad is in Punjabi, and I'm afraid my Punjabi is a little rusty so all I can tell you is that it's called "Harper: out of touch" and it's pretty clearly an attack ad. What did strike me is the maleness of the testimonials. The script is interesting. Recession, waste, but the comment o immigration and family reunification was interesting.

"The recession that we have been facing these days, Stephen Harper has failed to handle it ... It's getting worse these days. Stephen Harper 's government, they are just wasting tax payers money. Stephen Harper is changing the immigration rules, making it almost impossible for my family to reunite here in Canada. Stephen Harper is cutting millions from the services new Canadians rely on.

Stephen Harper is not in touch with the common man."

The next ad is in Portuguese, and is called "you have a choice." Unlike the Punjabi ad, both genders are represented so that's good. Again, the script takes shots at the Conservatives on several common Liberal attack themes, but adds an attack on Conservative cuts to immigrant settlement services.

"Canadians have a lot to say about Stephen Harper.

Stephen Harper is cutting taxes for big banks and big corporations and giving us nothing. Stephen Harper's government wasted a billion dollars on the G20 and fake lake. Stephen Harper is cutting millions from immigrant settlement services. You do have a choice. Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals will invest in things that matter to Canadian families. I like Michael Ignatieff. He's intelligent and listens to us. This election, vote Liberal!"

Finally, we have an ad in a language in which I can at least get one out of three words: French. It's called "J'aime le Québec." Don't really even need the translation for this one: Michael Ignatieff thinks Quebec is super cool, and what not. But he also lays claim to being an early advocate of the Quebec/nation thing. Which is giving me unpleasant flashbacks to 06 leadership drama, so I'm moving on. Mainly boilerplate feel-good federalism though.

"I love Québec. I love its people, and I love its land. I know that the majority of Quebecers consider Québec as their nation and Canada as their country. I was the first to acknowledge this fact. I believe that it is possible for one to be Quebecer and Canadian in the order of one's choice.

And I know that we need the commitment and the creativity of Quebecers in order to create an even stronger Canada."

This isn't confirmed, but I'm told to look forward to future Liberal ads such as"Ontario? Oh Yeah!", "Newfound is Nifty" and "British Columbia is my favourite, but don't tell PEI I said that baby."

Anyway, off to haul lumber and build signs. Oh corplast, why do you cut me so?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

New Liberal ads released: Your Canada, or Harper's?

Two new television ads dropped from the Liberals this afternoon. I'm told the ad buy will be "substantial" but what that means, I don't know. It will be a relative term, no doubt; I don't think they could match the massive Conservative buy that has been going on for months. Hopefully they'll get some play, though.

There are two ads. Both are attack ads, although one is softer and also strikes a more positive tone. Talking about the economy, and how Harper's priorities differ from those of Canadians, it also puts Michael Ignatieff up front. Conservative commenters speculated the Liberals were hiding Ignatieff in the first round of ads; not anymore:

The second ad is more of a traditional attack ad, using undistorted facts to highlight Harper's abuse of power, from refusing to fire Bev Oda for misleading parliament and playing shenanigans with documents to proroguing parliament, laughing-off election law charges against his senior campaign staff and having the ego to demand the Government of Canada be re-branded "The Harper Government."

I think I like the second one, abuse of power, a bit better.

I do think though that putting Ignatieff out there more is important for two reasons. One, it shows we don't think we need to hide him. Two, with the negative perception of Ignatieff the Conservative ad buys have implanted, the only choice is to either accept the characterization or fight it. Give people a chance to see another Ignatieff.

The tagline seems to be "Is this your Canada, or Harper's?" A note on strategy here for a moment, because I think this is interesting. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are putting Harper up front, but for very different reasons. The Conservatives see him as a strength to lead with, and the leadership polling numbers bare this out. The Liberals, and the other opposition parties, feel differently: they lead many of their attacks on the government with Harper, viewing him as a weakness for a number of reasons. It's an interesting dichotomy. Frankly, both strategies make sense. Harper does outpace his party in popularity at the moment, and with his leadership advantage they should lead with him. And for the opposition, while I don't think the public dislikes Harper near as much as we do, we need to turn them on him to be successful, and his one-man band governing style does leave him potentially vulnerable. And if the battle is between the LPC and NDP for swing voters, an attack Harper strategy definitely has merit.

We'll see if these ads get major play, or if it's mere symbolism. I think it's a clear message though going into next week's budget: we're not backing down; we'll take the fight to Canadians.

And the way to ensure these ads get more airplay, or course, is to make a donation. Apparently if you donate $50 or more you'll receive a "Harper is NOT here for Canada" t-shirt. Could be the must-have fashion on the campaign trail this spring.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

In defence of the attack ad

My friends the Green Party of Canada released an “attack ad” today that is generating a lot of buzz in political nerdom. It’s an attack ad on attack ads. Have a gander:

It’s a well-executed spot, and it’s an interesting strategy: speak to those turned off by the tone of politics as usual practiced by the usual suspects. I think it’s effective in speaking to those people, but I’m skeptical this is a burning (and vote-moving) issue for many people. People are more concerned about issues that impact them directly, like jobs and the economy, health care and education. There’s a “pox on all their houses” attitude on the level of debate and, while the Greens may hope to tap that (and such voters are certainly in their wheel-house), their positions on those other issues will be what moves people, or not.

It will get the Greens a little attention though as we move into a possible election and remind the chattering classes, at least, that they’re still around. I am amused, though, by the dichotomy of an attack ad that attacks attack ads. It reminded me of the 2006 Conservative ad, "They'll go negative", that warned the Liberals would (in the future) go negative but was, in fact, itself a negative ad. As well, people like to decry attack ads, but the fact remains they can also be pretty effective. So will an attack ad attacking attack ads be an effective attack ad? I don’t know know, but I love the Inception-like feeling of it all.

I would like, though, to raise my voice in lonely defence of the humble attack ad. Not all attack ads are created equal, and not all attack ads are bad. They do play a role in our political discourse, and a rote blanket condemnation of the medium is easy, but short-sighted.

Personal attack ads are definitely out of bounds in my view. We can all think of examples of personal attacks that crossed the line and were rightly condemned. However, issue-based attacks are completely within bounds, and play an important role in any healthy and vibrant democratic debate.

Our political system is built on government and opposition, on groups with opposing views arguing those differences and presenting choices to the people. Issue-based attack ads serve to highlight contrasts and distinctions between the positions and platforms of political parties. They help people understand their choices, and cast a ballot that reflects their views and beliefs.

In a busy world where people don’t pay as much attention to politics and policy as they should, attack ads are (unfortunately) one of the few ways people get their political information. Decry dishonest ads, decry personal attacks, decry short attention spans. But not all attack ads are created equal. And when it comes to highlighting differences on important issues, they’re an important and needed tool.

Maybe we need an attack ad attacking attack ads on attack ads? How would that be for meta mind-blowing…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

No Canadian seniors for NDP ad?

Getting into trouble with stock photos in political advertising is not new; it seems they just never learn. The latest offender is the NDP with the new ad campaign they launched today.

In a scene where they're talking about seniors issues and family care (family care? there's a good idea) they show Jack Layton with a senior and his family. Unfortunately it seems no Canadian seniors were available, so they turned to stock photography from a Danish photographer.

Here's a scene from the NDP ad:

And here's the iStock photo by Danish photographer Jacob Wackerhausen (aka Yuri Arcurs, presumably taken in his custom-built stock photo studio in Denmark.

I guess the NDP couldn't find any Canadian seniors to put in their ad, but at least they're helping seniors, even if it is in Denmark.

Of coure, these are the same guys that, with their 2007 pre-writ ad campaign, hired a UK company to run the online video component.

UPDATED TO ADD: To my NDP friends who tut-tut the questioning of imagery in political ads, such short memories. You may recall your own party launched a web site and newsletter campaign in 2006 to mock the imagery in Liberal campaign ads. Called "Average Canadian or Liberal Insider" they attacked the Liberal for "not being able to find average Canadians for their ads" because they used Liberal Party members talking about Canada, and only identified them by name.

But that obsessing over ad imagery, complete with an interactive web site and graphics, no less, is completely different, I'm sure.

Somehow.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Stephen Harper raises taxes

I was playing around with my video editing software last night and made this video. I worried it was a little unfair and wasn't sure I'd post it. Then I saw the new Conservative ads today and thought, what the heck...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jim Flaherty muses about increasing taxes

As part of the Conservative government's plan to try to convince Canadians that we should spend money we don't have to give big corporations tax breaks, instead of investing in ordinary Canadians, finance minister Jim Flaherty had a press conference this morning.

Postmedia journalist Andrew Mayeda was there, and he shares this excerpt from Flaherty's response to a question if the Conservative government would ever consider a tax increase down the road. I've boldedthe relevant portion.

"Our plan actually is to continue to reduce taxes over time in Canada. We've reduced business taxes significantly, and our plan continues in that regard. We've reduced the federal consumption tax, the GST, as we promised we would ... We've done some tax reductions on personal income taxes. Quite frankly, we'd like to do more over time, so that's the direction we want to go. What we're seeing in the economy is moderate growth. It's not dramatic, but it is steady. And we expect that to continue over the medium term. You know, given what we've all been through around the world in the last few years, I would never presume to say 'never' in terms of a very substantial economic shock where we'd have to have one. And there are risks in the world, with respect to Europe, with respect to relative weakness in the U.S. economy, with respect to some global imbalances that I'm sure we'll be talking about at the world economic forum (in Davos, Switzerland) the next few days. That's not the expectation. The expectation is that we'll have continued moderate economic growth and continued tax reductions over time."

Now, let me say first that, as a realistic and reasonable person, I think this is a perfectly acceptable and realistic answer. We don't know what the future may hold. Making definitive statements on hypotheticals is a fool's game. You can tell someone what you know they want to hear, but it wouldn't be honest. It's entirely possible that a scenario could arise where, to maintain programs, a tax increase may need to be considered.

So I think Flaherty's answer, which I'd sum up as "we're not planning to and we don't want to, but I won't say never ever," is the correct one.

But here's the thing. A few years ago Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was asked a similar sort of hypothetical. In short, the question was if the sky is falling and you had a massive deficit, would you maybe consider a tax increase? His answer, like Flaherty's, was that that wouldn't be his first choice, it's not his plan, but he wouldn't rule anything out.

And the Conservatives have been dining out on that answer ever since. In their most recent round of attack ads, once focused entirely on taxes, centred around a quote form Ignatieff that he won't take a tax increase "off the table."

So would it now be fair to see ads on how Jim Flaherty is going to raise your taxes, or is the sauce not as good for the goose as it is for the gander?

I look forward to the creative and entertaining rationalizations on how the Ignatieff and Flaherty situations are completely different. Don't disappoint me, friends.

UPDATE: In the interest of fairness, I should say that Mayeda reports Flaherty's office is crying, surprise surprise, that he was "misinterpeted." Reports Mayeda:

In an email, a spokesman for Flaherty said the minister meant that he would never rule out another big economic shock. I suppose it depends on how you interpret the word "one," which I took to stand for "tax hike." But fair enough.

Mark me down as unconvinced. The question was about ruling out a tax increase. Flaherty posited the hypothetical of another economic shock, and said he wouldn't rule it out. Look at the main line here again:

You know, given what we've all been through around the world in the last few years, I would never presume to say 'never' in terms of a very substantial economic shock where we'd have to have one.

Now, it seems pretty clear to me that by "have one" Flaherty means a tax increase. But he now wants us to believe one means economic shock.

Tell me, which sentence makes more sense?

A) I would never presume to say 'never' in terms of a very substantial economic shock where we'd have to have an economic shock.

B) I would never presume to say 'never' in terms of a very substantial economic shock where we'd have to have a tax increase.

Yeah, I'm not buying Jim. You had a moment of honesty. Own it. Don't piss on my trouser and tell me it's raising.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reviewing the Liberal ads

Rather than writing based on a first gut reaction, I thought I’d let the weekend go by before I offered my uninformed, non-expert thoughts on the Liberal ads launched last week.

I should mention that, after the Conservative ads launched, I wrote that I felt the important thing for Liberals to do was to stay focused on the ground, getting Michael Ignatieff in front of Canadians to prove that he’s not the caricature of Conservative folklore. I also wrote I didn’t see a compelling need to rush out our own ads; certainly not ones designed to counter Conservative messaging rather than reinforce our own.

I still believe that continuing to tour and meet Canadians is the most important and effective thing we can be doing. That said, there’s no reason we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

I think the fact we’re running ads may well be more important that the content of the messaging contained within. For one thing, it soothes panicky Liberal nerves after the Conservatives launched their barrage. And with this party that’s never a bad investment, particularly ahead of this week’s winter caucus meetings. It’s also a signal to the Conservatives. Their ads were evaluated as sending a message to the Liberals of “you want an election, this is what you’ll get so think twice.” With their ads, the Liberals reply “we can bring it too, so if you wanna dance we’ll dance.”

I’m not sure how much resonance the ads will have with the public. They do send the message that the Liberals are in the game, and with only the Liberals and Conservatives running ads, that could reinforce the two-choice narrative the Liberals want to put forward.

Of course, blink and you might not know these are actually Liberal ads. You’d have to read the fine-print at the start. While these ads could be successful at hurting the Conservative vote, what’s missing is what has been our challenge for five years: converting the disaffected to the Liberal column.

That’s not really a criticism. You can’t do everything in a 16-second ad. As long as we’re competitive going into a campaign, I’m happy, and these ads can help there. It’s in a campaign where we’ll need to convert on that support that might get shaken loose. And that is made possible by the ground work and touring that’s going on now, which is why I keep coming back to the importance of working hard on the ground.

As for the ads themselves, I like the choice to focus on fighter jets and corporate tax cuts. It reinforces the narrative the Liberals have been pushing: jets and big business tax cuts vs. family care and schools. I might have liked to have seen that second-half though. Rather than just hit the Cons, contrast it with our ideas for family home care, as an example. The contrast would help on the conversion challenge.

My favourite ad is the corporate tax cut one. Focused and to the point, speaking to the challenges of ordinary Canadians in the current economic environment and trying to put a gap between their priorities and the government’s. I think the jets issue can be effective too – the ferocity of the CPC propaganda campaign on this issue makes me suspect they have polling that shows Canadians aren’t onside with them on this one.

Now, I recognize that the ads sow confusion about the Liberal position, which isn’t actually to cancel the purchase (note, no deal has been signed yet anyways and won’t be until 2014) but to put the jet purchase to an open, competitive tender to get the best deal.

While I’d like for us to all have a full and open debate that puts all the factors on the table, I can live with it. For one thing, it’s a 16-second ad. For another, we’re fighting the spin and distortion of the Conservative side, backed by the defence industry. Rather than bring a copy of Robert’s Rules to a gun fight, putting forward a clear if slightly misleading message is an unfortunate necessity.

There is lots of talk around negative ads. The Liberals are trying to make much of the fact they're attacking Harper on the issues, while the Conservatives are attacking Ignatieff personally. Some media are predicting a backlash for the Conservative negativity, others say the distinction the Liberals are drawing is minute and meaningless.

The media always decry negative advertising. Just like they paint as weak someone who doesn't go negative. I don't lose sleep over their punditizing. Maybe, at some point, people will lose patience and punish the personal negativity. I'm not holding my breath though. Certainly, they never will if they lack a compelling alternative to turn to, which is why that remains our central challenge. And I really don't think most people watching at home will draw the distinction between personal negative and issue negative. I do, though, and I'm glad we're sticking to the issues.

Anyway, overall, I still believe the ground work is far more important than ads I don’t expect many people will see anyway, and that’s where we need to keep focused. But these ads do show we can respond rapidly too and we’re not afraid to spend some money and go on offence. With a campaign possibly coming up, in my completely non-expert view both are good signs.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

New Liberal contrast ads

The Liberals released two pointed and focused contrast ads this morning, returning the Conservative personal attacks with issue-based critiques. I'll told you should be seeing these ads on TV as we speak. More to come soon, I need to shower, shave and get off to work. For now, here are the ads.

And if you want to see these ads get more air time, click here and make a donation today.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives owe the taxpayers $45 million, and the invoice is due

The Conservative government violated its own advertising rules by plastering its Economic Action Plan web site with pictures of Stephen Harper and using a government web site as a partisan advertising and propaganda tool. When the civil service pointed out they were breaking the rules, the entitled to their entitlements Conservatives ignored the rules and plowed ahead anyway.

“In their typical ‘I-make-the-rules’ fashion, Harper’s Conservatives knowingly broke Treasury Board guidelines, breaking government standards for websites and advertising,” said Liberal Treasury Board Critic Siobhan Coady. “The Conservatives were advised that this was a violation, but plowed ahead anyway in order to blur the line between government advertising – paid for by taxpayers – and Conservative propaganda.”

According to federal documents obtained by The Canadian Press, bureaucrats advised that the EAP website – in the exact hue of Conservative blue and at one point featuring a video of Stephen Harper playing piano – broke Treasury Board rules. However, the website was given the green light by then-Treasury Board President Vic Toews despite these objections.

“Our party has long spoken out against this abuse of taxpayer dollars for partisan purposes,” said Ms. Coady. “In fact, we wrote the Treasury Board in October 2009 to complain about how this website and related advertising broke their own rules – and now we learn that two weeks after our complaint the Conservatives just gave themselves an exemption.”

A government web site bathed in Conservative blue? Pretending Harper playing the piano has something to do with economic stimulus? It's laughable. The proper thing to do is for the Conservative Party of Canada to repay the taxpayers for this blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars for partisan political purposes.

I trust the invoice will be paid promptly, lest penalty fees and interest be applied.

Invoice En

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals launch Italian-language attack ad in Vaughan

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper's ego is writing checks our bodies can't cash

I missed what I hear was a very successful Liberal policy forum in Toronto with Michael Ignatieff on Sunday, as I was on my way to Washington, DC to cover a conference for work. Well, in National Harbor actually, but it doesn't start until Tuesday morning so I have two days to explore the city. First time here, and it's awesome for a politics and history junkie. It's crazy hot here (over 40 with the humidity), but on day one I already saw the Washington Monument, the Capitol, the White House, and I toured the Air and Space Museum. Top of the list for Monday is the Newseum, and some more of the monuments around the mall. I'd also like to get out to Arlington Cemetery, weather and time-permitting.

Back in Canada though, there are also political events transpiring. Coinciding with the Toronto policy event (apparently to be followed by a significant policy speech by Ignatieff in Toronto on Tuesday) the Liberals also released a G8/G20 fake-lake related radio ad blasting the Conservative mismanagement of this billion-dollar boondoggle. Take a look:

And if you'd like to donate to get these ads more airplay, click here to find out how.

I was reminded of my all-time favourite show as I walked around DC yesterday, The West Wing. Particularly some of Josh Lyman's best lines. Sadly, I couldn't find any Republican Senators to tell to stick their legislative agendas up their asses.

You know who isn't Josh Lyman? Stephen Harper spokesthingy Dimitri Soudas (who is still on the lam, hiding from a baliff trying to serve him a warrant). The Conservatives let Soudas pop put of hiding to deliver the Sunday response to the Liberal radio spot. And it was laughable spin worse than when Sam Seaborn got schooled by Ainsley Hayes on Capitol Beat.

The Liberal ads say:

“Harper’s fake lake is part of his $1-billion boondoggle, Canada’s most expensive photo-op at a time of massive debt and out-of-control deficits,” the radio and television ads say. “So when you head to the lake this summer, remember you’re paying for Harper’s trip, too. An ego trip Canada can’t afford.”

So Soudas retorted:

"The ad's premise is that the average Canadian can afford to spend weekends at the lake. An understandable assumption, no doubt, by someone who vacations outside Canada and owns a summer villa in the south of France," said Mr. Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas.

"What Mr. Ignatieff fails to appreciate is that the vast majority of Canadians do not own recreational property. This is just another gaffe that shows he is grossly out of touch with the lives of ordinary Canadians."

Which just reminds us, Dimitri, that it is your government, although the vast majority of Canadians do not own recreational property, that spent $57,000 of our tax dollars to build a FAKE LAKE to show off to international journalists for three days, as part of a $2 million pavillion showcasing other fake parts of Canadian life.

So Dimitri, riddle me this: by your own logic, why is your government spending $57,000 showcasing an out of touch, elitist vision of Canadian life to the international media? Isn't that just another gaffe that shows the Conservatives are grossly out of touch? Instead of an elitist fake lake with elitist Muskoka chairs, shouldn't you have built a fake Tim Horton's, with fake Iced Cappuccino Supremes or something?

Because fake Tim Horton's is where the real fake Canadians go.

P.S. Something about the ego trip/can't afford line in the Liberal ad reminds me of that scene early in Top Gun when the air boss lays into Maverick, telling him his ego's writing cheques his body can't cash, and that he risks ending-up flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog crap out of Hong Kong. I can't find that video though, so instead here's a trailer that re-cuts Top Gun as a gay love story:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

New ad campaign mocks Conservative austerity message

With Thursday's budget, the Conservatives were determined to send a message of austerity, of belt-tightening. of deficit fighting. But a rash of new Economic Action Plan ads flooding the airwaves mocks this message, and exposes it as a fraud.

Austerity was the message they wanted to send. There was empty symbolism like promising to freeze MP and Senator salaries. There was a freezing of operating budgets. Promises to find efficiencies and cut waste they've apparently been tolerating for nearly four years. And there was a pretty chart of reducing deficits. Read the fine print and you'd see it's all pretty much a sham, with no real plan for deficit reduction to back their rosy projections.

Still, some of the more gullible members of the media swallowed the message uncritically. The most glaring example of this was John Ibbitson. In a Globe column that made me regret actually dropping $1.50 for a print newspaper for the first time in two years, Ibbitson called this the "the most austere, hell-and-high-water, deficit-fighting document since Paul Martin set out to balance his budget in the nineties." And I'm the King of Siam.

The austerity message was patently absurd from the start, as a look inside government operations clearly shows.

• Stephen Harper has made no move to trim his bloated cabinet, which would generate real savings on salaries and perks. Reducing cabinet to the level Jean Chretien did when he was fighting the deficit would save $3.9 million.

• Though Harper once boasted he didn't govern according to polls, spending on polling skyrocketed under his government. Just bringing polling spending back to the level it was at when Harper came into office would save $5 million.

• They're spending 156 per cent more on management consultants than the Liberals did, costing a whopping $355 million.

• And then there's the incessant, taxpayer funding advertising flooding the airwaves. The Reform-era Conservatives once railed against these ads. But the “Transport and Communications” budget which includes government advertising, as well as travel and communications contracts, has increased by 31.9 per cent under the Conservatives, costing a staggering $820 million. On Economic Action Plan ads alone, the Conservatives dropped $100 million. Yes, $100 million.

And they're not done yet. Watching the Leafs/Sens game tonight on Hockey Night in Canada, during the commercial breaks I was treated to a brand new round of Economic Action Plan ads. Clearly designed as a post-budget ad campaign, the ads tout year two of the stimulus program, and feature shots of the Hurdman Transitway station that bring back memories of my years in Ottawa.

How much will this new ad campaign cost? The Conservatives are still stalling on revealing how much they dropped on ads during the Olympics, when the price for a 30-second ad peaked at a staggering $365,000.

And what purpose will the new ad campaign serve? That there's any purpose at all is highly debatable. Stimulus for the broadcasters, perhaps. But one thing is for sure: it exposes as a laughable fraud the message of Conservative austerity, of serious deficit fighting, of any semblance of belt-tightening. Now when they're flooding the airwaves with ads.

Austerity begins at home. Unless you're a government that wants to use tax dollars to keep its poll numbers up, it seems.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Liberal ads: Keeping the momentum going

On Sunday, the Liberal Party released three radio ads (two English, one French) and a print ad focusing on the Stephen Harper Conservatives’ decision to shut down parliament for two months. These ads are noteable for a number of reasons, and would appear to signal a shift in strategy and thinking by the DonOLO.

Cover-up (English, radio)


Present (English, radio)


Fermeture (French, radio)


First, the ads themselves. They’re simple, on message and to the point: Harper prorogued parliament to avoid accountability and debate on important issues, what does he have to hide. They’re negative, yes, but they’re issue-based negative, not personally negative.

I’d argue the purpose of the ads is to keep the prorogation issue alive and in the public consciousness a little longer, with the hope of continuing to stoke that anger and, hopefully, begin to convert some of that anger into Liberal support.

Of course, the ads won’t do all that. They’re merely designed to keep the issue and the anger alive. Harper and the Conservatives are banking on this whole issue just fizzling-out and the public losing interest, returning the political landscape to the status-quo. The challenge for the opposition in the coming weeks will be to keep the momentum going, and keep both the public and the media interested and engaged.

Of course, as I’ve been writing, it’s not just enough to keep the momentum going. You need to do something with it. That’s what the Liberal back to work January 25th and the policy forums are about, as well as Ignatieff’s tour. Converting that momentum into support will be the challenge, but the minimal investment in these radio and print ads (buttressed by a healthy dose of free media) are a worthwhile investment to give that phase two conversion an opportunity to succeed.

More broadly and inside basebally (baseballish?), these ads do signal an interesting shift in strategy by the DonOLO. These ads are the first negative (although issue-based) ads the party has ran in English Canada outside a writ period in recent memory, although the French TV ads in the last round of ads did have more of an edge than the English Iggy in the forest spots.

I know many of my partisan friends were very disappointed the LPC didn’t take more of a hard-edged tone in those ads, opting instead for a feel-good Ignatieff intro approach. So they’ll be happy with the more negative, attack tone of these spots. Myself, I thought the instinct to introduce Ignatieff in a positive way was correct, I just didn’t think those ads did that effectively.

I heard though that, at the time, it was felt to go hard after Harper would backfire in English Canada, but Quebec was more open to it, hence the differing strategies. It would appear with these ads that perhaps it’s felt Harper’s perception numbers have shifted, and a harder edge will now be accepted and could bear fruit. So that’s interesting.

So is the fact that there’s now a willingness that seems to have been lacking for some time now to take the gloves off a little, that’s a positive development. Couple that with issue and policy development and it could prove interesting.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers