On personalization

While plenty of commentators have noticed the latest Nanos leadership numbers, there hasn't been much discussion as to why it is that Jack Layton has managed to pass Michael Ignatieff by every measure. So let's take a look at what seems to be behind the numbers.

Keep in mind that at the time of the poll, Ignatieff and his party had been in the news constantly for a series of public forums which have generally been well-received among the country's pundit class. And in principle, a concerted effort to work with policy issues might have figured to be an effective way to reverse Ignatieff's earlier decline caused by a focus on seeking an election at all costs. But instead, Ignatieff's personal standing managed to drop.

Meanwhile, Layton had been in the news less often than Ignatieff since prorogation. (Which of course doesn't necessarily mean that he's had less to say, only that he hasn't received the same constant coverage given to the Libs' series of Ottawa hearings.) But that changed the first day the poll was in the field - which is when Layton revealed that he was fighting prostate cancer.

As I noted at that time, the result was (for the most part) an outpouring of sympathy and best wishes from across party lines. And from Nanos' numbers, the same effect may well have played out through the public as well. With Layton having appeared in the headlines on a personal level, suddenly his impressions compared to both Harper and Ignatieff received a substantial boost - even as Ignatieff had been largely driving Canada's political agenda since the last leadership poll.

Lest there be any doubt, the above isn't to suggest that party leaders should be looking to trumpet personal health issues or other obstacles in order to try to win public sympathy. And indeed, a competition to that effect might well manage to make Canadians even more cynical about their politicians than they already seem to be.

But the respective public images of Layton and Ignatieff may offer some indication that respondents have long since seen through the presentation of leaders as photo-op props - such that it only takes a small amount of identification on a human level to set a leader apart from his peers. And if the result is to encourage more authentic interaction between political leaders and the general public, then that might well prove a plus for all concerned.