i agree it might backfire, but this analysis is missing the point of the ad. i'll put my biases out front: i have a lot of contempt for ad people. i think the vast majority of advertising is completely useless, and most people just ignore it. when advertising is rarely effective, it's not because it convinces people at a conscious, rational level but because it reinforces something at a subconscious level - something we've never even really thought about, but that the advertisers realize is floating through the back of our minds.

the reason the ad exists as it does is because they've collected the data through intense micro-polling and who knows what other techniques to conclude that this is a subconscious thought in the minds of the voters they're most likely to swing back. it follows that if you're analyzing the ad on the way most people react to it on the surface, you're just misanalyzing it. the question isn't about how most of us react to it actively, it's how it's target audience (older people) reacts to it passively.

but, i think it might backfire for the reason that it's transparent. not because it's talking points. not because it's awkward. but because it's obvious that it's meant to mess with people.

messing with people like this can be extremely effective, but only if people don't realize they're being messed with. as soon as people realize what's happening, it can backfire - and hard.

but, if that doesn't happen? if people don't see it for what it is? then, this is the most effective ad we've seen yet - for the 5% of voters it's directed at.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ad-hawk-conservatives-stephen-harper-isnt-perfect-1.3225349

somebody needs to tell bob rae to go on vacation for a few months. they're trying to win an election in ontario, here. the last thing they want is bob rae making statements. it doesn't matter if he happens to be right. he's bob rae.

"It's a global economy, it's a competitive economy. We'd all love to tax the rich, on the left, but on the ground, it no longer works."

well, let's get the pitchforks, then, because the deduction is that we need a revolution, not that we need to become conservatives.

after all, that's what revolutions are for: to get political representation. it seems clear that the ndp aren't doing this. it's up to the people to make sure they pay for it.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-chris-hall-liberals-ndp-1.3225365

Buffalojump
NDP don't balance budgets. That's why people vote for them.

Vote NDP

Jessica Murray
the ndp are unfortunately actually quite adept at slashing services in order to balance budgets. their record since the 90s is pretty clear on that. as ndp supporters are quick to mention, they have the "best" record in balancing budgets and slashing services of all the parties - even the conservatives. if you want real fiscal conservatism and real spending discipline, the ndp is your party. the record is clear; the conservatives push deficits, the ndp don't.

but, people are broadly voting on their record from the 60s, rather than their record from the 90s. that's why articles like this are important as voter education.

the high polling numbers have largely receded, but for a while it seemed like we were voting for david lewis and about to get tony blair instead. and, that's a big problem. a big systemic problem.

and, i think the ndp need to take responsibility for it. they had a convention in 2013 where they confirmed all kinds of long standing positions. they've ignored and reversed almost all of it, without replacing it with anything in writing. the only way to know where they are in the spectrum is to follow the news cycle. they need to get that platform out soon, so people have the opportunity to realize what they're voting for.

the conclusion of the article is that we ought to let the americans worry about innovation and just focus on producing raw materials. i'm not content with that. but, let's change what we think about innovation, and what we think about business. it is no doubt true that we cannot spend at the levels that are required to create an apple or an intel. but, do we want to?

canada is going to have unique concerns is transitioning out of the carbon economy, due to our unique climate. we may not be able to export this. but, we can use it for ourselves.

we also have unique growing concerns. i'm sick of importing fruit from california; we could build this ourselves at low cost, if we were to invest in the technology to automate indoor growing services.

there's plenty of more examples that have to do with things like public transit, housing, garbage collection and recycling...

in this rush to service the rest of the world, we've lost track of what we need, ourselves. and, isn't that what really matters? we don't just need a shift in economic philosophy, we also need a shift in priorities.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/on-the-economy-what-next-when-the-election-is-over/article26335844/

great news for the climate!

let the western bastards choke on their own filth.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/02/alberta-oilpatch-layoffs_n_8078660.html

see, a lot of historical liberal voters like myself (although i voted ndp in '04, '06 and '11) like the idea of...the ndp have moved out of this space, but the greens have maybe moved in to it. what we like is the idea of giving the liberals executive control and forcing them to have to listen to a party on their left to stay in power. that is, we'd prefer to keep a three or maybe four party system and then force the liberals to work in a minority. the reason is that we're broadly liberals, but we lean a little to the left of the party heads and want a little bit of a check on their "bay street" instincts. we're liberal voters, and we think the liberal politicians want to lean in our direction, but we're aware of the power of money when governments are left unchecked. so, it's a desire to modify the balance of power in such a way that forces the party to change the way it calculates things.

consider the following scenario: if you substitute the greens in (and that probably won't happen this election), we could see a circumstance arise where the liberals start dragging their feet under oil industry pressure. forcing them to need green party support to pass the budget would give them the incentive they need to stop dragging their feet. there's an argument (it's maybe a little off) that this is basically the dynamic we got our health care system under.

nowadays, the ndp are likely going to need that leftward pressure to act as well, rather than being it themselves. but, the same logic applies, should they form a government.

i'm a supporter of the av, and it is partly for that reason. any kind of pr, on the other hand, strikes me as a way to move against that sort of dynamic and put more power in the hands of the party executives.

in an av vote, and despite identifying more as a liberal than a dipper or a green (and in fact being left of the spectrum), and certainly depending very strongly on the actual candidate, my av preferences would probably consistently be

1. green
2. ndp
3. liberal

...unless the specific liberal riding candidate is clearly preferable, or the green candidate is obviously a right-winger [which happens sometimes]. in this election, because the ndp are ahead, and the green candidate does not appear to be terrible, and the liberal candidate is of mixed appeal to me, it would be:

1. green
2. liberal
3. ndp

that is, because the ndp appear to be ahead, my preference would be to vote for a liberal to act as a check on their power.

but, in the fptp, in my riding, i'm probably going to end up voting liberal - because i do broadly prefer the liberal party positions, and neither of the candidates is stellar.

the polling on majority v minority preferences does seem to indicate that there's quite a few people thinking in these terms.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/11/how-a-different-electoral_n_8125358.html

Ron Kelly
Hyer says that his "first loyalty is to my constituents and the people who elected me." But they elected him as an NDP candidate, not as a Green candidate or an Independent candidate. If his loyalty is to the voters, then he owes them a chance in a subsequent byelection to either elect him as a Green candidate or elect some other candidate. Telling your voters that you represent one party and then, without their consent or approval, switching to another party is hardly what most people would consider a display of loyalty!

John Northey
Howsabout having all NDP MP's resign once Mulcair was picked as leader since many voted for Jack Layton's NDP not Mulcair's. That is a bigger issue than Hyer leaving due to locals wanting him to keep voting as he had always voted.

Ron Kelly
John Northey, it's not Mulcair's NDP and it wasn't Layton's NDP. It's the members' NDP. And that hasn't changed! And if Hyer didn't want to vote as the NDP and its members wanted him to then he shouldn't have asked them to let him be their candidate. I doubt very much if he sought the NDP candidacy with the slogan: "Choose me so I can ignore what you want me to do!".

jessica amber murray
actually, it has changed pretty dramatically. the 2013 convention resolutions have been thrown in the dustbin; mulcair has demonstrated nothing but contempt for where his members sit, and has instead just made things up as he's gone along.

be prepared to be shocked by their platform. it won't be recognizable as an ndp document.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/10/bruce-hyer-thomas-mulcair-green-ndp_n_8118582.html

the concept that is "progressive rock" was not meant to set a style into stone for it to be emulated over and over, but to set fire to the convention of genre, allowing for absolute expressive freedom.

i liked some of the darker material on the colour spectrum, but that really hit me by surprise; what i expect from this outfit is stale cliche, and that is predictably all i've gotten from them since and all i expect from them in the future. hipster nods to appalachia, recycled post-rock, generic film scores, fairytale conservative narratives - it's not challenging, but tiring.

70s punk critiques of 70s prog were mostly strawmen arguments; roger waters had a more sophisticated critique of capitalism than anybody that came out of the punk movement did; peter gabriel reflected working class values better than anybody out of punk did, too. but, they apply startlingly well to the totally pretentious, fully recycled, creatively dead, lowest common denominator garbage that we call modern prog.

ReptoidBoffin
+deathtokoalas You're so goddamn right. I always found punk opprobrium towards prog rock bizarre, it isn't as if it's a pro-establishment genre or anything. (I am confused as to why you want to kill koalas though).

deathtokoalas
+ReptoidBoffin to an extent, i think it was a typical conflict between theory and practice. punks just wanted to fucking get on with the revolution. spontaneous anarchist revolt! prog had a lot of escapist aspects, and that deserved the criticism that it got, but the more politically oriented of it wanted to take the role of social critic, vanguard and curator. it's a pretty typical argument in leftist circles.

also, koalas must be destroyed due to their despicable cuteness.