Dreams of Wardrobe

Ignatieff pledges not to reciprocate personal attacks

If there's any one word that could be used to sum up the recent Conservative ads regarding Michael Ignatieff, it's personal.

Rarely have Canadian politicians taken it upon themselves to attack a political opponent on such personal grounds, but the Conservatives have done this. It's absolutely undeniable.

Speaking on the matter today, however, the Liberal leader has pledged not to attack Stephen Harper on personal grounds -- at least not overtly.

"Let's be clear how we carry the attack, because I will not attack Mr Harper's patriotism," Ignatieff promised. "I will not attack his character. I will not attack his family. I will attack his record, and God knows, there's enough to work on."

"There's enough on the record that we can attack: record unemployment, record bankruptcies, record deficit," Ignatieff announced. "That should give us enough to be getting along with."

And while Ignatieff knows full well that the economic stimulus package -- the stimulus package that he and his fellow members of the opposition demanded -- is responsible for Canada's current deficit, and knows full well that economic mismanagement south of the border is responsible for Canada's current economic condition, it's encouraging to hear Ignatieff pledge to restrict his campaigning against Stephen Harper to substantive matters of policy.

And while it would be both encouraging and wise for the Liberal party to try to brand itself as the party of the high road -- thereby counter-branding the Conservative party as perveyours of low-road politics -- one also has to remember that this would be counter-characteristic of the Liberal party.

After all, it was the Liberal party that dressed Stephen Harper up in fictional policy. It was the Liberal party who insinuated that Harper would summarily declare martial law if elected to office.

Michael Ignatieff may personally be able to scrape together enough credibility to temporarily change the public image of his party. But Canadians will remember the disgusting and shameful lows the Liberals sank to in order to attack Stephen Harper. They'll remember that as disgusting and irresponsible as the Conservatives' current batch of political ads are, previous Liberal ads were even more disgusting and even more irresponsible.

Canadians may also be intrigued to be introduced, once more, to the "tough guy" personae, wherein he indulges himself in blue-collar tough talk, replete with calculatingly devolved language.

"If you mess with me, I will mess with you until I'm done," Ignatieff pronounced.

It's a bold statement, but one has to hope that Ignatieff is as good as his word. Even though the Liberal party has never succeeded electorally against Stephen Harper without resorting to personal -- and often fictionalized -- attacks, one has to hope that at least someone in Canada has the courage to rise above the personal mudslinging that has passed for political campaigning in this country for too long.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Ideas Revolutionary - "Attack Ads"

With opposition parties likely getting ready to gear up their law and order policy planks following yesterday's school shooting in Toronto, it's unsurprising that the Conservatives have reacted so quickly with a spot addressing crime.

With Stephane Dion likely to step up his gun control-related rhetoric in the aftermath of these shootings, the Conservatives seem to be moving to preemptively re-brand ahead of futher accusations on Dion's behalf that the Tories haven't made Canada a safer place.

In the ad -- clearly produced at the same time as the preceding "sweater vest" ads -- Harper talks about the need for preventative measures when dealing with crime, but notes that "soft on crime does not work".

The implicit accusation is that the opposition parties are soft on crime -- an accusation that could gain traction in wake of the opposition's treatment of various Conservative anti-crime bills.

In other words, the Conservative campaign is counter-branding the opposition as soft on crime even as it re-brands itself as the party of law and order.

Moreover, the advertising arm of the Conservative campaign is clearly operating just the way it should. It's been responsive to the news and proactive in regards to the opposition.

A question remains about whether the Tory crime spot is being released too soon following the high-profile Toronto shooting. But one thing's for certain: in terms of advertising, the Conservative machine is burying their competitors, and the party's extremely successful fundraising is helping them do it.

In only their second English-language ad released during this election campaign, the Liberal party has finally deployed its first English-language counter-branding spot against Stephen Harper.

For some political parties, a week would be a long time to wait. For the cash-strapped Liberal party, maybe not so much.

That being said, the ad begins by pushing Harper's image closer to that of an unpopular American president. In a marginally creative shift, however, that president isn't George W Bush, although it is a Republican.

Instead, it's Ronald Regan, as the spot substitutes Harper's name into the "Reganomics" label so often used to describe Regan's trickle-down economic policies.

The ad first questions Harper's commitment to environmental policy. Obviously, the ad doesn't mention that Liberal MP Ralph Goodale recently admitted that, by the criteria that most environmental groups allegedly judge environmental policy, the Tory Green Plan is superior to the Liberal Green Shift.

The spot accuses the Conservatives of writing a "blank cheque" to oil companies to pollute and gouge Canadians at the gas pumps. Conservative Environment Minister John Baird has already struck back for the Tories on this issue, pointing out that the Green Shift plan would allow oilsand developers to continue polluting so long as they're willing to pay carbon taxes.

The spot also points out some of Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's comments about Ontario last year, wherein he questioned whether or not the province needed to cut corporate taxes in order to make investment in the province more viable.

The ad also notes the number of programs -- 66 in total according to the ad -- and accuses Harper of "divide and conquer politics".

This overlooks the fact that it's traditionally been the Liberals who have indulged themselves in "divide and conquer politics", pandering to Quebec and Ontario while largely ignoring the rest of the country. Only after the rise of the Bloc Quebecois have the Liberals been required to win seats across the country in order to form governments.

It's intriguing to see the Liberals, in the course of their counter-branding effort, trying to brand the Conservatives with a fault that has traditionally been their own.

Whether or not it works will be another story entirely.

The ad concludes by welcoming Canadians to "turn the page" with the Liberal Green Shift plan. The drab black-and-white images played during the "Harpernomics" portion of the ad is then substituted for colour images of promised environmentally-friendly prosperity under the Green Shift.

However, with the release of this ad -- their second ad promoting their vaunted Green Shift plan -- the Liberals are at risk of becoming a single-issue party.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have released ads concerning immigration, foreign policy, trade policy, and child care. While none of these ads tell the viewer very much about the related Conservative policies, they make the Conservative platform seem a good deal more comprehensive than the Liberal alternative.

Meanwhile, the ad also has a pivotal weakness: it's certain to remind voters who don't like Harper why they dislike him, but they're unlikely to convince many undecided voters against him, nor do they make any real specific appeal for NDP or Green party voters to switch to the Liberals.

At least one thing can be said for certain: with their first anti-Harper ad on the air in English Canada, the Liberal campaign's gloves have effectively come off.

The second round of this election has officially begun.

In a new ad released yesterday, the Conservative party took advantage of a trade-related issue brought up by Stephane Dion.

Dion has suggested that the allgedly weak environmental policies of the Conservative government would imperil Canadian trade, as other countries impose punitive tariffs on countries judged to have taken insufficient action fighitng climate change.

"Other countries are considering slapping carbon tariffs on those who don't take action on climate change. As hard as it is to believe, for now, Canada is one of those countries," Dion recently said.

Dion's Green Shift plan promises to impose such "carbon tariffs" on other countries judged to be dragging their feet on climate change.

The ad itself seems to have been put together rather hastily. It features a different narrator than previous Conservative ads, and relies almost overwhelmingly on the analysis of a single expert -- Carlton University's Michael Hart. It features images of numerous Canadian trading partners being stamped with the word "tariff" as it progresses toward its logical conclusion: a map of the United States -- Canada's largest trading partner -- being stamped.

Perhaps it's inevitable that trade-related issues (in particular, Free Trade-related issues) were going to come up in the election campaign. In August, David Orchard, Canada's leading anti-free trader finally secured his opportunity to run for the Liberal party.

Perhaps it was only a matter of time before the Liberal party offered up some kind of Free Trade-related policy -- one that would inevitably require the abrogation of NAFTA -- in order to keep their newest star candidate in the fold.

Not so surprisingly, Dion's trade-related musings closely resemble musings by Barack Obama that he would try to renegotiate NAFTA in order to add environmental agreements. Considering Dion's poor performance on fighting climate change during his last go around, questions over whether or not Dion is, like Obama, merely bluffing remain lefitimate.

As such, the Conservative counter-branding effort in this case ironically tries to drive Dion closer to potentially unpopular policies of the man he would likely most like to emulate, even if Jack Layton is outdoing him on that particular front right now.

This subtext of the ad -- and reminders that many key details about Dion's Green Shift plan have been postponed in Campbellian fashion until after the election -- seem to be meant to work together to encourage voters to question Dion's genuinity and ponder the economic consequences of such a move.

The ad also represents a notable shift in the overall Conservative campaign -- moving away from tactics of ridicule and toward serious debate.

This particular ad is a bold move for the Conservative party. It will be interesting to see what kind of effect it has on the campaign.

Anti-family label is just plain silly

Yesterday, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounced the Liberals and NDP for allegedly being "anti-family", the Conservatives released yet another spot targeting Stephane Dion.

The ad addresses a previous statement by Stephane Dion in which he announced he would cut the Conservative's $1200 per annum childcare tax credit.

The ad insists that the choice to voters is clear "you keep the $1200, or [Dion] gets it."

Dion has denounced the claim as a "lie". Yet Dion did, in fact, say that he would cancel the Tory plan. More specifically, Dion would replace the Universal Child Care Benefit with Ken Dryden's plan for a national daycare program.

"The Dryden plan was much better. We need child care facilities to provide Canadian parents with real choice. It's a matter of social justice, but also of sound economics: child care facilities are a good way to encourage flexibility and mobility of our workforce, at a time when, often, two parents are working outside the home."

Which is obviously precisely what the ad is referring to when it warns that "[Dion] thinks he can spend [the $1200] better than you can."

Thus, there's nothing dishonest about the ad.

However, the ad's place in an effort to counter-brand Stephane Dion as "anti-family" is just plain silly. After all, Dion is a family man himself. It's unlikely that Dion himself would do anything to hurt his own family. Anything that would hurt Canadian families would inevitably hurt his own, in one way or another.

Just as Jack Layton is a family man as well, and has campaigned on numerous pro-family policies.

However, as silly as the Conservative effort to counter-brand Dion as Layton as "anti-family" (and there is a great peril in dragging politics down into the realm of vapid "anti-" labels), Dion's attempt to counter-brand the Conservatives as "liars" is doubly silly.

For one thing, the claims in the Conservative ad pan out to be true. Secondly, the base accusation of lying portrays Dion as a man incapable of debating the real issues -- instead choosing to dodge behind accusations of lies.

Stephen Harper himself insisted that the 2008 federal election would be a nasty one. With moves such as the inherently silly "anti-family" label, he's done more than his fair share to make it a nasty one.

Equally unfortunately, Stephane Dion has proven himself more than willing to oblige him.

Tories step up attack in counter-branding effort

Along with three enthusiasm-themed ads (discussed earlier today), the Conservative party released three negative ads directed at the policies of Liberal rival Stephane Dion.



In almost comical fashion, the Conservatives are seeking to portray Dion as a gamble for Canada. The first ad features a "Scratch n' lose" lottery ticket, portraying Dion's policies as a "triple threat" to Canadians.

In the first ad, the Conservatives press Dion over musing about hiking the GST, eliminating the Conservative $1200 per year childcare plan and the carbon tax.

On all three propositions, the Conservatives insist, Canadians lose.



In the second ad -- this time featuring a one-armed bandit -- the Conservatives raise the prospect of higher gas prices, grocery bills and increased cost of virtually all consumer goods under Stephane Dion.

As the unseen gambler continues to play the machine, each pull comes up Stephane Dion -- and each pull comes up as a loss.



In the third ad, the Conservatives use the imagrey of a craps table to address Dion's various flip-flops regarding carbon taxation -- noting that Dion was against it as a Liberal leadership candidate, suddenly for it as Liberal leader, and unwilling to commit to specific policy points -- or even release them for public consideration.

As the unseen shooter throws four dice, they continually come up spelling "DION", featuring a clip of Dion making contradictory policy statements just before the dealer continually pulls them away.

On the final throw, the dice instead come up spelling "RISK".

The ads in question are a slick counter-branding effort, likely prepared months in advance and just waiting until the Liberals released their first pro-Green Shift ad.

Not only do the ads counter Liberal party policy proposals with reasons for some sobering second thought, but they also continue to counter what is becoming a common assesment of conservatives -- that they lack a sense of humour.

The ads are also presciently themed. With the kinds of changes Stephane Dion wants to make to the Canadian tax structure, there is no question that Canadians voting for Stephane Dion are taking a real gamble. These Conservative ads should prove to be rather effective, as they're merely reminding Canadians of things they already know.

Conservative party continues its branding effort

Today, the Conservative party released a staggering six new campaign ads.

The ads fall distinctly into two categories: enthusiasm-baed spots, aimed at encouraging people to feel good about the prospects of voting Conservative, and negative ads, designed to make people think twice about voting for Stephane Dion and his Liberal party.

(Negative ads are considered distinct from attack ads because they address policy points as opposed to the personality points of a candidate.)

For the purpose of analyzing their role in the now-ongoing election, the two categories of ads will be considered separately.



This particular ad takes a page out of the old John Diefenbaker playbook and promises continued efforts to deal with arctic sovereignty.

In 1958, John Diefenbaker campaigned on the issue of arctic poverty and transformed his minority government into one of the most dominant majorities seen in Canadian history (he also followed it with a minority government that survived for less than a year before being defeated by Lester Pearson and the Liberals).

With this particular ad, Harper is trying to re-brand himself and his party as the party that cares about arctic issues. While Harper's campaigning on the issue of arctic sovereignty was a welcome prospect in the last election, Michael Byers and the NDP seized the initiative on arctic issues in the days leading up to the campaign, counter-branding the government as missing the big picture.

Of course, with the United States, a newly more aggressive Russia and other countries trying to stake claim to the Northwest Passage, arctic sovereignty will be an important issue in this election.



With both the Liberals and NDP fielding candidates percieved as foreign policy heavyweights (legitimately in the case of Michael Ignatieff and not-so-legitimately in the case of the aforementioned Michael Byers), the Conservatives needed to stake out foreign policy early in the election.

In this particular ad, Harper simply talks about the need to have "real capabilities" to "contribute to global security [and] humanitarian development".

"This country has to stand for something," Harper insists.

Yet, as a branding effort, this spot may be less effective than the Tories may have hoped. After all, it's one thing to insist that Canada should stand for something. It's entirely another to actually know what that "something" is.



The third enthusiasm-themed ad seems to be a re-branding attempt following an NDP ad portraying the Conservative government's tax cuts as being bad for Canadians.

Harper once again points to "global economic uncertainty" (something that is quickly emerging as a theme of the Conservative campaign), and insists that, while the government has cut taxes, it has ensured that new spending will benefit "ordinary families".

To be able to attempt to brand oneself while simultaneously counter-branding the opposition is an advantage that inevitably comes with having more money to spend than the opposition.

Branding is crucial for the Liberal party

For "Jack Layton and the NDP" (as he and his colleagues are often so eager to put it), "change" is the Obama-esque theme of their election campaign.

But that's territory they're going to have to fight for, as the Liberal party is promising sweeping changes to the country's tax structure that could very well change the country at a fundamental level.

The first Liberal campaign spot, released yesterday, doesn't quite go so far in promising their Green Shift plan as that kind of fundamental change, but certainly implies as much in the subtext.

The ad is, like the opening batch of Conservative spots, an enthusiasm-themed ad. Promising to "make the environment and economy work together" and "make polluters pay", the spot in question plays to a growing impression of Stephane Dion as a man of vision.

How far that vision extends, and whether or not Canadians favour it are different matters entirely.

Regardless, the ad seems to explain why the producers of the infamous Liberal attack ads of 2005/06 was available to go to work on the NDP's advertising -- instead of the stark, somewhat frightening tone of past Liberal ads (particularly those under Paul Martin's leadership reign), this ad speaks to a positive, optimistic space in Canadian politics.

The imagery in the ad is almost exclusively light and cheerful (with the obvious exception of smog-clouded smokestacks when the ad promises to "make polluters pay").

This may also mark the first time in a number of federal campaigns in which the Liberals have declined to go negative first -- this time, allowing the NDP to get their hands dirty first (unless one counts the "not a leader" and "oil splotch" ads released by the Conservatives).

One thing this ad certainly represents is the Liberals getting back to traditional business. Branding has always been an important element of any Liberal campaign, and with the NDP set to largely ignore the Liberals in favour of attacking the Conservatives, the Liberals may not need to stage a counter-branding campaign against the Conservatives at all.

By not moving to counter-brand against the Conservatives first, however, the Liberals have clearly put the ball in the Tories' court. What happens next in terms of campaign advertising will remain very much up to Stephen Harper.


(Unfortuantely, the embeddable player programmed by the Liberal party webmasters and obtained from their website is a little screwed up. Then again, this is the party that waited until 10 minutes before Stephane Dion's University of Alberta speech was scheduled to start to set up their Audio/Visual equipment.

Thanks again, organizational prowess of the Liberal party! -Ed)

Counter-branding effort begins

In the 2005/06 federal election, many people hoped Jack Layton and the NDP would play softball with the Liberals, hardball with the Conservatives, and keep Stephen Harper out of office.

Instead, the NDP focused their efforts on the Liberals, shrank the Liberal caucus returned to the House of Commons, and -- some say -- helped Stephen Harper get elected Prime Minister.

Of course, Layton understood well what he was doing when he targeted the Liberal party -- he was attracting disaffected soft Liberals to support the NDP instead.

Now, less than a day before the call of a 2008 federal election, the NDP has once again chosen to err on the side of the opposition, releasing a new attack ad against Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

Following a trip to the Democratic National Convention, Layton seems to have decided to adopt the kind of strategy that helped deny Al Gore the White House in 2000 -- portraying the two mainstream parties as lacking in meaningful differences.

The ad takes aim at the Conservative party tax cuts (taking note of "$50 billion in corporate tax cuts" while strategically ignoring the tax cuts for middle- and low-income Canadians), and taking a page out of the old Liberal party playbook by complaining about child poverty.

The ad addresses one in five Canadians who reportedly don't have a family doctor and, predictably, the Fort MacMurray tarsands.

This ad follows a recent round of branding ads by the Conservative party, and are thus an excellent example of an attempt at counter-branding. In this case, branding the party as bad for low-income Canadians, cutting corporate taxes at their direct expense.

However, those who pay close attention to the ads will notice something else: a striking resemblance to the infamous 2006 Liberal attack ads, including the one that helped sink their entire campaign, featuring heavily drum-laden music and even the same woman providing the voice-over.

In the end, Jack Layton appears against an NDP orange backdrop, and concludes that Canadians need "a new kind of strong". "The new strong is about fighting for what's right for you," Layton says. Presumably, the kind of strong leadership that will be provided by Jack Layton and the NDP.

Of course, this depends all on how one defines "strong", and perhaps that's the real genius of the ad -- challenging what many people consider to be "strong" leadership, and taking direct aim at the legion of polls that find that Canadians regard Harper as the best of the country's federal political leaders.

It's an interesting mix of political strategy: simultaneously attacking the Conservatives' biggest weaknesses and what many consider to be their greatest strength.

With Liberal spots sure to hit the air within the next couple of days, this impending election is apparently going to start hot.

All we need now is an election call.