SpinDoctor

No election but the battle for your mind continues

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:03:00 +0000

An election this fall may be unlikely. But a struggle seems to be shaping up for the hearts and minds of Canadians just the same.

To understand what is going on between the two major parties visualize a couple struggling to control the TV remote. Each wants to change the channel to suit themselves.

The Conservatives seem bent on taking us back to the Cold War and a frontier mentality as they plan to build more prisons, despite a falling crime rate, and spend billions on military equipment to protect us from the Russians.

The strategy would appear to be one of keeping us preoccupied with our security and physical well-being so we won't think about gaping holes in the healthcare system until after the next election.

The Liberals are trying to cash in on Tory heavy-handedness by scaring Canadians into thinking the Conservatives have a hidden agenda for a dictatorship built on the politics of meanness.

In addition, Liberal leader Micheal Ignatieff is inviting us into his " big red tent" of a political party in which all Canadians are welcome, not just those who happen with agree with the leader. With a bit of luck, Canadians may even forget they kicked the Liberals out of office just over four years ago.

It has been a terrible summer for the Tories with one miscue after another. The Liberals believe they are finally on to something now that the Tories' 11-point lead in the polls has evaporated over the summer.

Up until recently, playing on people's fears and anger has kept the Tories well ahead of the Liberals. Now that the two parties are neck and neck in the polls, it's the Liberals' turn to play on public paranoia.

Unfortunately, issues that really do matter to Canadians, like a sustainable healthcare system, are going to have to wait until one of the two parties gains the upper hand and feels comfortable enough to start proposing solutions.

In the meantime, watch for an image makeover of the Prime Minister to make him appear kinder and gentler. As for the Liberals, now that their guy has had his transformation, the challenge will be to convince the public they really have regained the capacity to be Canada's natural governing party again.

Sadly, Canadians may not really know what either party stands for until after the next election.

Political landscape very different when Parliament goes back to work

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:47:00 +0000

Parliament goes back to work the week of Sept. 20 and a lot has certainly changed since it recessed for summer. The Tories are no longer on cruise control toward a majority and Michael Ignatieff may be doing a Lazarus act in his political fortunes.

Let's look at how things may shape up:

Conservatives: A clear, understandable narrative was the Tories' most potent weapon against the Opposition when Parliament broke for summer. It was the law and order party standing up for a strong and secure Canada as well as ordinary Canadians.

It is going to be a little more difficult for the Tories to continue to present themselves creditably as the law and order party while they continue to feud with the country's police chiefs, who oppose the government's plans to abolish the gun registry. In addition, it is going to be difficult to continue to be the party that stands up for the troops when war veterans are complaining publicly of shoddy treatment by the government

Pat Strogan, the recently fired federal ombudsman for veterans, may have done the Tories more damage than the whole census fiasco.

Speaking of the census, the worst for the Tories may be over. But this was a miscue that branded the government of Stephen Harper as ideologues with a hidden agenda. No wonder the Tories have lost their enthusiasm for a fall election. It may be too early to write them off but they're going to have to work a lot harder just to stay in office.

Liberals: Ordinary Canadians can be forgiven for being confused by the way the media have been reporting current Liberal fortunes. When the summer began, the Liberals were framed as a faded party that had lost its way with a leader as inspiring as dishwater.

Now Ignatieff is being portrayed as an invigorated leader of a party that somehow got it's game back on the summer barbecue circuit. Sure Iggy's bus tour not only went better than most expected, it really was a cleanly executed, professional operation.

But neither Iggy nor his party have undergone that much of a metamorphosis in the months of July and August. In reality, the media have switched news frames after tiring of the Tory juggernaut narrative of last spring. Expect to be reading and hearing a Cinderella story starring the Liberals for most of autumn.

This would be a good time for a reality check among Liberals, however. So far they've been fortunate that the Tories have been doing more damage to themselves than any Opposition party could ever hope to do. The Liberals should not count on the Tories shooting themselves in their collective feet forever.

NDP: Party leader Jack Layton is in danger of being the major casualty of the gun registry debate. The caucus is the most divided among the parties on this issue.

If the gun registry ends because enough NDP MPs side with the government, the party will undoubtedly face the wrath of urban voters as the price for saving a handful of rural seats.

No wonder Layton is now trying to straddle the issue with a compromise for a kinder and gentler gun registry that looks a lot like something Iggy proposed a few months ago.

Bloc Quebecois: If there is one constant in federal politics, it is the Bloc. It may present itself as the party that will one day break up the country. But those intentions really are a useful fiction for everyone on Parliament Hill.

As long as the Bloc exists, the Tories don't have to worry about the Liberals holding Quebec as the fortress it was in the Trudeau years. Meanwhile, the Liberals also don't have to worry about being wiped out by a Tory majority as long as the Bloc controls Quebec.

For the NDP, it is nice to have a second left-leaning party that can be an ally on important issues.

As for the Bloc, a separate Quebec may be growing less likely. But isn't it nice to have generous federal salaries with indexed pensions, courtesy of the country you want to break up.

Rob Ford bid points to serious voter discontent

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:27:00 +0000

It would be easy to dismiss Rob Ford as just another one of those nut bar mayoral candidates who turn up in municipal elections.

His views on immigrants and what he calls "Orientals" are nothing short of offensive. He has been caught twice now fibbing to the media about unsavoury things in his background -- most recently a drunk driving conviction in Florida.

Then there was the time he was over-refreshed as a Leafs Game in 2006 and had to be escorted out by security after accosting other spectators.

There is just one tiny detail, however.

He is the front runner for mayor of Toronto in the upcoming civic elections.

Have the good burghers of Toronto lost their minds?

For some reason, Canadians have elected quite a collection of assorted colourful individuals as their mayors -- people like Mel Lastman and Allan Lamport in Toronto, William Hawrelak in Edmonton, Jean Drapeau in Montreal and Larry O'Brien, the current mayor of Ottawa.

Maybe it is our way of seeking comic relief from all the concerned and faux-serious candidates seeking our votes in provincial and federal elections. Whatever the reason, Ford's candidacy is not very funny.

The best thing that can be said about his candidacy is that he is a nihilist who opposes everything and stands for nothing. He is the kind of candidate who comes along every so often when voter cynicism is higher than usual.

Those who practise politics for a living across Canada should be paying attention to Toronto's municipal race. The voters are trying to tell the political class something.

Over the weekend, The Toronto Star published several revealing Q and As with voters who support Ford. They talked about their discontent not just Toronto politics but all three levels of government.

Ford's candidacy is a flashpoint for widespread voter discontent throughout an overtaxed and cynical middle class. The voters are telling the political class to stick it.

Summer politics recasting Iggy

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:23:00 +0000

Michael Ignatieff must be wondering if he should spend more time outside of Ottawa.

When Parliament rose for the summer, Iggy was badly bruised by a critical media and the Tories were making steady advances in the polls. Even his much-touted barbecue tour had a lousy beginning when the bus broke down on the highway outside Ottawa and had to be repaired at a place called Harper's Garage.

You could almost hear the guffaws coming from Parliament Hill.

But as Iggy winds down the summer tour, things have changed dramatically on the federal scene.

The Tories are trending downward in the polls. Much attention is being devoted to their bone-headed decision to get rid of the mandatory long-form census. Even the management ability of the Prime Minister's Office is an issue.

The Tories have been nice enough to change the channel in the media away from Iggy's problems to their own.

As a result, nice things have started to crop up in the media about Iggy.

Has the Liberal leader changed dramatically since the summer began?

Hardly. Political journalists like to have a common narrative or news frame to provide a backdrop to their daily stories. The life span of these frames can last for months until a major development -- like a sudden drop in the polls -- alters perceptions of the political landscape.

Of course, Iggy and the Liberals have received a big boost from the census controversy and the fact that Prime Minister Harper made himself scarce for most of the summer.

Even the fact that expectations were so low for Iggy's barbecue tour has worked to the Liberals' advantage. There were no disasters beyond the bus breaking down; therefore the tour is being reported as a success.

Watch for a new media narrative of Iggy and the Liberals closing the gap with the Tories.

As a former member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, I can tell you that the media enjoy playing God with the politicians. Build them up for a few months (or years, as they did with Paul Martin) and then tear them down. In Iggy's case, the media started with tearing him down. Now they will likely build him up and tear Harper down.

The media love a good horse race, always.

Few traces left of original Reform Party

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:59:00 +0000

There were a couple of milestones in the past week or so that served as reminders of how few traces are left on Parliament Hill of the old Reform Party.

Jay Hill, the government's House Leader and one of the original Reformers, has announced he will not seek re-election. He was quickly replaced by John Baird.

The current ruling party may have grown out of the original Reform caucus of 51 MPs who were elected in 1993. But today there are just 11 of those members still sitting in the House of Commons, and one of them, Keith Martin, is now a Liberal.

The original Reform gang had some wacky ideas (like canning prisoners or outlawing deficits). And they were certainly naive. But they brought a refreshing attitude to a very cynical city in their demands for transparency and respect for the taxpayer's dollar.

For the most part, they were well liked on all sides of the House and by the media. Hill's departure as a congenial House Leader is a reminder of how things have changed.

Another reminder is the performance of couple of government ministers in the past week.

Industry Minister Tony Clement demonstrated very nicely what members of cabinet do when they are in serious trouble -- he made personal attacks against citizens who disagree with him.

He said the wide range of groups opposing the end of the long-form census were doing so out of self interest because they have been getting market research data at the taxpayers' expense. "They had a good deal going," he said, with the clear implication his critics are a bunch of freeloaders with their noses in the public trough.

Never mind that the Constitution makes it clear it is Ottawa's job-- and no one else's-- to conduct the national census, or, that only a public impartial agency could ever be entrusted to collect personal information from the public.

Then Treasury Board President Stockwell Day argued Canada needs to spend $9 billion on an expanded prison system despite a falling crime rate. Apparently, this is because of the rising rate of unreported crime.

So how did he know this? If the crimes are unreported, where do you the statistics?

To bail out the minister, the government produced a six-year-old study from Statistics Canada that said 34 per cent of crimes go unreported to police. What the government didn't mention was that the study dealt with penny-ante crimes that likely wouldn't be investigated by police. Things like car break-ins or graffiti vandalism.

The original Reform gang used to howl in derision when ministers tried to stretch things. Many of the original Reformers must be in despair at what has happened to their party.

Parliamentary media shirked their duties

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:43:00 +0000

The topic of this blog is really something one would expect in a banana republic, not in Canada. And the topic is all the more bizarre because you have not been able to read about it or hear about it through the media.

In the dying days of the spring session on Parliament Hill just before the summer recess, the Commons environment committee voted, in secret, to not only reject a draft report on the Oil Sands but to order it shredded.

The draft report was written by committee staff after almost three months of testimony by environmentalists and oil industry executives.

Commons committees routinely use draft reports by staff as working documents while MPs on all sides deliberate on recommendations. But the committee, at least a majority of MPs on the committee, decided this particular report, based on 300 pages of testimony, had to be suppressed.

We don't know why exactly because parliamentary committees deliberate on draft reports behind closed doors. But since the report likely would not have included recommendations --that's the MPs' job -- we can only conclude someone didn't like what was in witness testimony. Could it have been the Conservative MPs who dominate the committee?

At the moment there is only one copy of the report locked up in the Commons Clerk's office. It will not be tabled in Parliament. Nor will it be released to the public.

According to The Hill Times, Conservative MPs on the committee are claiming the public is not being deprived because anyone is free to examine transcripts of almost three months of testimony. But that is a hollow argument.

In fact, the committee's action goes against everything a democratic Parliament should stand for.

But the committee's action isn't the only thing that is disgraceful in this sordid affair.

Where was the Parliamentary Press Gallery? This incident went unreported in mainstream media at the time and continues to be ignored, at least by major newspapers and broadcast outlets.

As a former member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, I can tell you there is no media conspiracy here. Media have been neglecting the important work of parliamentary committees for years. In addition, media are so preoccupied with covering politics like it was a horse race, they frequently miss important issues unless the Opposition decides to raise them.

And that leads to another question -- where was the Opposition? Had environmentalists not demanded to know what happened to the committee's report, no one off Parliament Hill would know.

If parliamentary democracy does die in Canada, the media and the Opposition will have to share the blame.

If you would like to know what the Commons environment committee did hear about the Oil Sands, check out article by Andrew Nikiforuk on TheTyee.ca or a story by Kristen Shane in the July 26 edition of The Hill Times.

Census decision a stupid waste of credibility

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:40:00 +0000

When I first came to Ottawa as a journalist in the 1980s I used to think this country was being run by a bunch of Machiavellians capable of the most clever and diabolical conspiracies. It was not long though, after seeing government and politics close up, that I realized just because someone was running the country didn't necessarily mean they knew what they were doing.

Sure there are plenty of Machiavellians in Ottawa and some conspiracies actually do look pretty clever. But that has to do more with plain, dumb luck rather than anything else. Here on the banks of the Ottawa river, the ruling class stumbles through its work week just like everybody else.

With those thoughts in mind, let's look at the Great Census Controversy.

Someone in the Langevin Block, where the Prime Minister and all his bright young things hang out, probably decided months ago that getting rid of the compulsory long-form census questionnaire would be a good idea.

But it was decided not to announce the decision while the Opposition was in town, lest there be controversy. So the Prime Minister's Office sat on its decision until Parliament had risen for the summer and then tried to quietly announce it in the dog days of July when Opposition MPs would be on the barbecue circuit.

Unfortunately for the PMO, the only thing going on at the federal level was the bus tour by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, hardly enough to hold the press gallery's attention for more than a day. As a result, the census decision got inordinate attention and still does as the only game in town.

One has to wonder what would have happened if the PMO had chosen a busier time like budget week to announce the census change. The media likely wouldn't have noticed.

As for the reason for the decision, your guess is as good as mine about what the Tories had hoped to gain. But here's a theory.

During the days of Mike Harris in Ontario, the provincial government liked to have successive target groups, such as welfare cheats, teachers or union bosses. What better way to show the voters what a good job you were doing than by setting up a straw man issue and dealing with it.

The Harrisites who haved moved to Ottawa seem to have brought that modus operandi with them. After all the Harper government got elected by campaigning against crooked lobbyists (real and imagined). Then the Harperites turned their attention to the press gallery, then Liberal-appointed civil servants, then an evil Liberal-NDP-Separatist coalition, and so on.

Claiming the census was a threat to people's liberty and then doing something about it seems to fit that pattern -- create a crisis, then appear to solve it.

It might have worked had Industry Minister Tony Clement not tried to mislead us by implying Statistics Canada was on board with the changes. That prompted the chief statistician, Munir Sheikh, to quit and publicly proclaim the government's idea as goofy as we thought it was.

Now the Tories have a real crisis.

In fairness, this isn't the first government to come up with a dumb idea. After all, the Liberals' sponsorship strategy didn't quite work out as planned. The Mulroney Tories thought it would be a great idea to designate Montreal and Calgary international banking centres in order to drain thousands of jobs from Toronto.

Clement should watch his back. Another part of the Tory MO is to throw a scapegoat under the bus. Ask Helena Guergis.

One bit of advice from the late Frank Magazine for all those who insist on defending the indefensible. You can't polish up a turd.

A story you won't read in the media

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:39:00 +0000

There is an adage among political professionals that while polls may not matter, trends in polls do. The current trend in polls is that they are trend less.

One week the Tories are ahead of the Liberals by 11 points. A little over a week later, another poll indicated their lead over the Grits has shrunk to just two points.

Whether this is the result of a volatile electorate or ambivalence about all politicians in general might be hard to determine. Certainly it explains why no party seems eager for a fall election.

So how come we don't read or hear much about polling trends? The answer is that since most media outlets commission their own political polling, they don't want to publish anything that might cast doubt on content they paid for or highlight what their competitors might be saying.

Some might call this simple business logic. Others might call it a conflict of interest.

In recent years, before and during elections, we have seen several polls that stood out because their conclusions have been quite different from the pack. Sometimes they stood out because they were first to spot an emerging trend. But most times they were simply wrong.

Political types privately dismiss erroneous polls as rogue or, in some cases, as push polls-- when questions have been tactically orchestrated to elicit a desired response.

The media tend not to touch talk like that even if it involves a competitor's poll just as GM won't criticize one of Ford's cars for fear of feeding public doubt about an entire industry.

But the media are in the business of alerting their audiences to trends as well as new and sudden developments. If one bank posts a loss while the rest are turning in profits that departure from an industry trend is reported. It is called context.

Context is as important as fact except, of course, when it comes to reporting the findings of a poll commissioned by one's employer.

In another gripe, media tend to report polls in plain vanilla terms of winners and losers. But nothing else that might point to any sort of trend.

For example, most pollsters ask decided voters what their second choice would be. Second choices are rarely reported in the media.

To knowing eyes, a party that is rising as a second choice may be on the verge of assuming the lead in coming weeks. Or it could mean the support of the leading party is soft.

This is one are where the public should be demanding more from the media and a higher standard of reporting.

New GG announcement well executed

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:09:00 +0000

There has been plenty of criticism in this blog about the federal government's communications techniques. So let's look at something that went right in terms of strategy and tactics.

Last week's appointment of academic David Johnston as Canada's new Governor General was well executed by Tory spindoctors.

We have all read, copiously by now, about how our new GG was a practical joker at Harvard and the inspiration for a character in the book Love Story.

What we haven't read much about is how the prime minister owes the new GG for getting his government out of a dangerous situation with the Mulroney/Schreiber affair. We also haven't read much about how this had been expected to be an Aboriginal appointment.

This is probably because the Prime Minister's spindoctors didn't want us to.

The government followed the time-honoured tradition in Ottawa of the strategic leak. On the eve of Johnston's appointment, the identity of the new GG was leaked to CTV News in time for the late night network newscast.

By the following morning, the rest of the media had picked up the leak with attribution to CTV.

When it came time for the government to make the actual announcement, the media were loathe to simply repeat what had already been reported overnight. Quite naturally, they were looking for a fresh angle.

And lo and behold, the media somehow found their way to former roommates and old anecdotes, courtesy of sources only too happy to assist in getting that fresh angle.

Aside from the book connection, Johnston was also the man who wrote the terms of reference that kept the Airbus scandal out of the Oliphant Inquiry and protected the Harper government from being pulled into a long-running scandal.

Had the media not been spoon-fed anecdotal material, journalists likely would have focused on how the government owed Johnston, big time.

In the current media climate, the narrative of least resistance wins every time.

More thoughts on the Toronto G20 Summit

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:26:00 +0000

By now most of us -- at least those who weren't arrested or didn't suffer property damage -- are growing weary of the Toronto G20 Summit. But fallout from the event isn't likely to go away for a long time. Please bear with me.

What was interesting to me was how preoccupation with security demonstrated some traits of modern government that Canadians may not like to talk about but should.

Secrecy: Let's face it. Secrecy is second nature to those in government, no matter what the Charter of Rights, Access to Information Act and provincial freedom of information laws say. Transparency and accountability may be buzz words politicians and civil servants use constantly. But the fact is that public officials, at any level of government, will default to secrecy in a stressful situation.

In the days leading up to the summit, the Ontario government temporarily invoked the Public Works Protection Act, a relic of the Second World War, to give police extra powers to ensure the site perimeter would be secure, and then said nothing. Even the Mayor of Toronto first learned about this draconian measure through the newspapers.

When word did leak out, the media reported that this statute gave police the power to search anyone within five metres of the perimeter fence and demand identification. Now we are told the police did not have such powers at all. Neither the police nor the Ontario government made any effort during the summit to clarify what the law did or say. Withholding information like that borders on lying.

Rights of the state trump yours: Regardless of what the Charter might say, the state acts like it has virtually unlimited rights of expropriation for a higher good. This is why Maher Arar spent a year in a Syrian prison. The state expropriated his life in the interests of nationals security. This is why innocent people find themselves on no-fly lists with little recourse.

And this is why police scooped up hundreds of innocent people and incarcerated them without charge on the weekend of June 26-27. Apparently, the concern was that organized anarchists, known as the Black Bloc, were using crowds to shield themselves. So the state responded by taking away the crowds and ordinary people's civil liberties for several hours, or days in some cases.

Public officials know full well most of those arrested were guilty of not crime. That is why they have suddenly become reluctant to say anything publicly. For the most part, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair has been left on his own to defend an unwritten policy.

Rights of Inquiry: Governments only call inquiries into their own conduct when there is an overwhelming compelling reason. That is why it took 25 years for Canadians to find out what they always suspected about the Air India tragedy. That said, Canadians should persist in demanding one into the Toronto summit -- regardless of government reluctance.

The summit that left a foul odor

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:01:00 +0000

Monday morning's papers were all over the map on whether the summit was a success or not, just as the police response to protesters was reported as either measured or over-aggressive depending on who was being quoted.

Chances are, if you believed international summit meetings productive, you probably continued to believe the same Monday morning. Conversely, anyone who questioned the usefulness of these events before the weekend likely hasn't changed their opinion either.

Canadians remain ambivalent about summits and media coverage reflects that.

Ironically, Prime Minister Stephen Harper can rightly claim victory because the 20 developed nations agreed to his proposal of a commitment to cut their government deficits in half by 2013. This agreement is all the more remarkable since U.S. President Barack Obama was pushing for continued economic stimulus.

Harper's win was part of the weekend's media coverage. But it was over shadowed -- at least in Canada -- by protester violence, 900 arrests, and a $1-billion price tag for security. As The Toronto Star noted in a deadline: "Arrests, tear gas outweigh glory."

In contrast, Harper took top billing over Obama in Sunday's New York Times. The Times coverage, which only mentions the protests in passing, made it clear Harper was able to get the upper hand behind the scenes and Obama had to back track and go along with the deficit reduction plan.

This may be the first time in U.S. media that an American president was portrayed as a subordinate player to a Canadian prime minister.

Harper likely wishes today that the G20 summit had been held in an isolated location. The protesters have muddied the narrative the Tories were looking for in advance of an election. And unfortunately for Harper, the Tim Horton's crowd doesn't usually read The New York Times.

One thing not lost in the fray is the odious aftermath of summit security. No doubt there will be continued demands for an inquiry to find out why police arrested so many -- almost twice those held under the War Measures Act in 1970.

Joggers, bystanders and even tourists were scooped up in a giant police dragnet. There were also a disturbing number of reports of journalists being detained or even roughed up.

Toronto Mayor David Miller is fortunate he was already announced he will not seek re-election. Otherwise, his hast defence of police actions would likely come back to haunt him.

Even the Toronto police were smart enough Monday to acknowledge that innocent people may have been held by accident as officers worked to restore order and protect the city from further destruction.

In fairness, it shouldn't be surprising that people's rights suffered while police had to work frantically to put down a major riot. But it is reasonable to wonder if police weren't taking out their frustrations on the public after losing control on the streets on Saturday.

The images of what happened in Toronto this past weekend will likely be remembered by Canadians long after Harper's summit accomplishments are forgotten.

PR industry takes a hit with BP disaster

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:53:00 +0000

The petroleum industry won't be the only sector to be worried about its credibility when the BP crisis in the Gulf of Mexico finally ends.

Ten years ago BP spent $220 million U.S. on an award-winning image makeover. The campaign recast its brand as a leading socially-responsible and green company.

The "Beyond Petroleum" campaign was so effective that as recently as 2007, customer surveys ranked BP as the leading environmentally-friendly oil company.

No doubt BP's current troubles will lead people to conclude the campaign was just so much green washing by PR flacks. Corporate image makers should be just as worried about the aftermath as the overall energy sector.

In the PR industry's defence, it is the client's responsibility to live up to its brand. BP wasn't doing that, according to media reports in the two months since its deepwater well blew out.

Last year, for example, it cut investment in alternative energy by 28 per cent.

In addition, had the company been willing to spend an extra $550,000 on its deepwater rig for something called a remote control acoustic trigger, the Gulf of Mexico disaster might have been limited.

Such technology would have allowed company workers to close the well by remote signal after the rig was destroyed by explosion and fire on April 20.

American regulators considered making such technology mandatory early in the past decade. But BP and other oil companies lobbied against it because of cost. That $550,000 must now seem like chump change.

Of course, BP's current communications problems in the Gulf go well beyond a gaffe-prone CEO. Documents are now surfacing that show the company had been withholding material information about the extent of the catastrophe. BP will have far more trouble than a toxic brand to worry about for years to come.

As for professional image makers, the PR and ad industries will likely huddle soon to discuss how they can force clients to live up to the hype they created for them. Perhaps there should be some sort of liability code for spin doctors.

What remains is astonishing is this: why would any corporation risk an environmental disaster to save a few bucks? Have they forgotten lessons learned over the past 30 years -- Exxon Valdez, Bhopal, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?

Perhaps simple human nature is also toxic.

--------

There was much in the news last week about Quebecor's plans to set up a Fox News style infotainment channel in Canada. What didn't get much attention was how Quebecor's Sun Media trashed one of the best reporting bureaus on Parliament Hill because of a format change.

The Sun's predominately female bureau had been leading much of the parliamentary press gallery for months in breaking stories and asking tough questions about government spending. Reporter Elizabeth Thompson, for example, won a Canadian Association of Journalists award for revealing how heritage silver from Rideau Hall was accidentally sold.

Kathleen Harding as been replaced as bureau chief. Thompson and fellow reporters Christina Spencer and Peter Zimonjic have been simply dumped.

Quebecor is free to make whatever changes it wants. And those who follow Parliament Hill will be free to judge whether Sun Media's new predominately male bureau is an improvement or not.

Mistake by the lake should tell us something

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:23:00 +0000

Think back to the summer of 2005 when Stephen Harper was still the leader of the Opposition.

Remember a particularly hideous photo that was taken at the Calgary Stampede in which Harper was wearing a leather vest that was too tight and a goofy looking hat?

He was between communications directors at the time. And the photo clearly demonstrated there was no one in his entourage with either the cachet or experience to say "Stephen, lose the look."

In the months following, Harper showed much more communications savvy in front of the cameras and became prime minister as a result.

The predicament Harper is now in over the costs of the G8 and G20 summits, in particular the supposed need for an artificial lake in the Toronto media centre, should also be telling us something about his government's communications ability, or lack of it.

When first reported, the cost was $1 million to put an artificial lake about four blocks north of the real thing. Subsequently, this was revised to $57,000 out of the total media centre budget of $1.9 million.

Even at $57,000, voters across the country may think the fake lake is a mistake. But it's interesting that the government's huge communications machine let several news cycles lapse while the price was being reported at seven figures.

This could point to several things going on behind the scenes. In the past 12 months leading up to the summits, the government has been keeping details of costs quiet. Is it possible their own communications people were not fully briefed?

Even the government's ministers seemed to be blindsided when the story broke. Did the summit expenditures get a full review at cabinet, or just inside the Prime Minister's Office?

In addition to the fake lake, the Tories have not been able to defend a whole raft of summit expenditures that smell like pre-election largesse in rural Ontario. G8 leaders are unlikely to venture outside a guarded compound.

Perhaps if the Tories had released details of summit spending gradually over several months they wouldn't now be facing a public backlash.

It has been mentioned in this blog before but it's worth repeating. For a government obsessed with controlling its messaging, it doesn't seem to communicate about is own affairs very well,

particularly when things don't go as planned.

BP sunk before it started damage control

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:29:00 +0000

I have resisted commenting in this blog on BP's saga of disaster in the Gulf of Mexico because I didn't want to pass instant judgement on a horrendous environmental and public relations catastrophe.

It has been five weeks since the company's gushing well head began destroying the shores of Louisiana and who knows where else. So it is time for a report card on the company's crisis management.

The first thing PR pros will tell a company in crisis is to own up to its responsibility. BP did that -- sort of-- when its well head began spewing oil into the gulf. However, it equivocated by laying blame on a subcontractor.

This was probably a mistake because most people would infer the company was just trying to cover its butt. BP should have been unequivocal in accepting blame up front. There will be plenty of time later to parcel out blame and examine who did what.

Secondly, the company may have displayed some arrogance in the beginning that it will undoubtedly regret in years to come. Although the world has never seen an environmental disaster quite like this, BP acted like it could fix it and make everything right, no problem.

It even gave cute, snappy little names like Top Hat to its various attempts to stop up the flow. As a result, the media have been busy reporting a litany of failures.

It would have been better had the company owned up to the fact it would be a long arduous task to stop the leak, and said as little as possible while it searched for a solution.

As Susan Reisler, vice-president at Toronto PR firm Media Profile, noted to The Globe and Mail: "What would have helped them from the very beginning is for them to say, 'We're in uncharted waters.' Because they didn't do that, they created the expectation they knew how to fix it."

BP has far too much in retained profits in its treasury to be on the brink of bankruptcy. However, it is hard to imagine how BP can carry on business as usual in the U.S., which accounts for 40 per cent of the company's market. Watch for the company to be sold off in pieces.

Also BP CEO Tony Hayward will be lucky to survive the balance of the year in his current job. Aside from a wobbly start in his company's damage control efforts, Hayward has said some dumb things such as "I would like my life back" as thousands of people in Louisiana are likely wondering what they will be doing for a living when all this is over.

Still, Hayward inherited an ill-fated oil well from his predecessor, John Browne, and therefore doesn't deserve all the criticism. But a struggling multinational will want to make a dramatic statement that it is changing its ways. The quick way to do that is to get a new skipper.

It happened on Hayward's watch. So he wears it.

Overall, this disaster will likely have the same effect on the petroleum industry as the Three Mile Island disaster did on the nuclear sector in 1979. Policy makers will find applications for deep water drilling just as toxic as they did for new reactors for for almost three decades.

The Alberta tar sands must be looking awfully good to investors right now.

Happy ending for Bryant leaves questions for the rest of us

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 10:54:00 +0000

A few months ago this blog dealt with how Michael Bryant was able to clear his reputation in the court of public opinion. Now that the former Ontario attorney general has been cleared in the court that counts most, let's have another look at this bizarre case because there are still questions that should be answered.

Prosecutor Richard Peck withdrew all charges against Bryant in connection with the death of a Toronto bike courier, Darcy Allan Sheppard, in a curbside altercation, saying there was no chance of conviction. Then he cited a litany of incidents involving the cyclist and other motorists, including an elderly woman.

Peck, a Vancouver lawyer brought in to avoid any appearances of special treatment, concluded by saying Bryant should never have been charged.

The prosecutor was very thorough in explaining why the charges -- criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death -- were being dropped - so much so that most people were satisfied justice has been served.

The defence made the unusual move of turning over its evidence to the Crown in advance of a preliminary hearing in the hopes the prosecution would see the folly in pursuing a guilty verdict and drop the whole thing. It worked.

As a result, the official victim has been cast in the public mind as the actual villain and the original villain has become the victim.

Case officially closed. However, a few questions come to mind.

Considering another recent high-profile court case, why couldn't the prosecution have been as forthcoming as Peck when most of the charges against former Tory MP Rahim Jaffer were dropped in an Orangeville court in March?

In that case, the Crown simply said there was little chance of conviction with charges of cocaine possession and impaired driving. As a result, Jaffer was able to plead guilty to careless driving and got off with a slap on the wrist. No other explanation was given and the prosecution left politicians in Ontario and Ottawa to deal with a hostile public.

Perhaps it was because Peck, a defence lawyer, didn't have the secretive mindset that most Crown Attorneys seem to have in Ontario. Clearly, the Ontario legal system could learn something about public accountability from the visiting counsel from B.C.

Back to Bryant: If the prosecution says he should never have been charged, then why did the police charge him so quickly within hours of the incident?

Sure there were witness statements the night of the incident that would seem to indicate Bryant was trying to flee the scene of the accident. But how reliable would any witness statement be of an incident that lasted 28 seconds?It was determined that Sheppard had a blood alcohol content of twice the legal limit. He also had been in a police cruiser earlier that same evening after an alleged domestic dispute.

Did police canvass the area to determine if Sheppard had been involved in other altercations with motorists? Remember, most of the evidence Peck cited came from the defence's investigation.

The police certainly had an obligation to show that a former politician was not getting any special treatment But how thorough was the investigation?

Finally, the most disturbing question of all: What would have happened if a person of ordinary means without the sophistication of a former attorney general had been caught up in an incident like this and why was a very troubled Darcy Allan Sheppard not receiving mental health care?

There are questions we all should be thinking about.

Iggy and the AG: Talk about lost opportunity

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Mon, 24 May 2010 22:07:00 +0000

The recent decision by MPs to keep the Auditor General away from their expense accounts and office budgets may say a lot about the disconnect between Parliament Hill and the rest of the country.

But it also says something about Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and why he is struggling as a politician.

If there ever was an opportunity for the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to score some political points this was it.

To recap briefly, MPs essentially started a one-week adjournment May 13, adamant that Auditor General Sheila Fraser would not be given jurisdiction to audit how taxpayers' money is spent on Parliament Hill. Only the Bloc Quebecois was on public record as supporting the Auditor General in her bid to audit House of Commons expenditures.

Rather than explain their reasons for opposing the AG, the three parties tried to hide behind something called the Board of Internal Economy, which meets in secret and basically runs the House of Commons. It consists of the Speaker and the House leaders of each of the four parties.

Since the Board of Internal Economy had ruled against the AG,that wast that, MPs said. But when public outrage became apparent as phones in constituency offices started to ring, MPs began breaking ranks. One of those was Iggy.

Instead of giving the AG a flat no, Iggy now said the Board of Internal Economy should meet with her and try to work something out. Within days he was joined by the Prime Minister who said his government would be happy to talk about expanded audit powers.

Clearly both leaders saw how the public wind was blowing and knew there was no point trying to defend the indefensible.

The Auditor General likely will soon win the right to audit how the House of Commons is run.But the Liberals have lost an opportunity. Had they joined the Bloc in supporting the AG, they could have shown voters they really were in tune with Canadians and willing to make Parliament Hill more accountable.

Now three of the four parties on the Hill are rushing to cover their posteriors.

Something is wrong with the Liberal leader's instincts, just as there is something wrong with federal politics.

How not to manage a scandal

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 18 May 2010 10:51:00 +0000

If there is ever a university course on scandal management, the Guergis/Jaffer affair would make a great case study.

Ottawa's handling of this episode is a fine demonstration of what not to do. In fact, the government's strategy and tactics appear to have backfired.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper kicked Helena Guergis out of cabinet and the government caucus on April 9, citing accusations of a criminal nature that were being turned over to the RCMP and the parliamentary ethics officer.

Since Guergis had been a embarrassing thorn in Harper's side, most of us expected her to disappear into history quickly. Six weeks later she is still a thorn in Harper's side.

Harper didn't say what those accusations were at the time. Since then the government has only acknowledged they came from a third party who turned out to be a Toronto private detective.

That private detective testified before MPs last week that he had no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by Guergis or her husband, former MP Rahim Jaffer. In fact, the private eye testified he was misquoted in a letter to Mary Dawson, the ethics officer, by Guy Giorno, Harper's chief of staff.

And in a recent CBC-TV interview with Peter Mansbridge, Guergis broke into tears after claiming the allegations have never been made clear to her. Nor has she heard anything from the RCMP. It was a convincing performance.

As a professional politician, Guergis knows how to play an audience. However, the private detective's testimony, or lack of it, appears to back her up.

In addition, the government's response has been rather weak. It now says it has other sources of allegations against the former junior cabinet minister in much the same way the security bureaucracy kept saying Maher Arar was a dangerous person without saying why.

It took a royal commission to establish that suspicions about Arar were groundless. What will it take to get to the bottom of the unknown allegations against Guergis?

Parliament is not sitting this week and lucky for the government. Otherwise the Prime Minister would have to explain why he kicked Guergis out of caucus while allowing an Alberta Conservative who is under RCMP investigation for mortgage fraud to stay.

As a minister, Guergis stayed in the cabinet at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. So why all the histrionics to remove her? And why expel her from caucus?

Guergis is looking more and more like a victim, while the government is looking more and more conspiratorial. Did the government grab the first excuse that came by to get rid of a hapless minister rather than admit the mistake of keeping her in cabinet for as long as it did?

The accuser is becoming the accused.

Why didn't Canadian media touch this Toyota safety story?

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 11 May 2010 11:18:00 +0000

Since there has been a lot of criticism in this blog about how people communicate through the media, let's shift attention to the media's performance this week.

Last Thursday, the New York Times ran a story about how Transport Canada has been handling the safety issue that has been dogging Toyota for the past eight months.

Written by the paper's Ottawa correspondent, Ian Austen, the story revealed that while Transport Canada publicly applauded Toyota last November for its protection of consumers, the department's own employees wrote memos that said the exact opposite. The story was based on internal e-mails and it was very thorough.

"Toyota Canada's action seriously undermines this safety issue," wrote a Transport Canada field inspector last October in an e-mail concerning floor mats.

Yet a few weeks later, a departmental news release declared: "Transport Canada applauds Toyota's action to protect consumers" over the same issue.

As shocking as this story may be, Canadian government departments have a very long history of valuing commerce over simple truth and ignoring what their own officials tell them.

Almost 20 years ago, Health Canada told Canadian women silicone breast implants were completely safe when its own scientists were telling the department they weren't. More recently, the Department of Foreign Affairs chose to pretend Afghan detainees weren't being tortured despite warnings from its own officials.

Canadian media are well aware that government department behave this way yet continue to allow them to get away with it.

Although last week's New York Times story was given very prominent display, there was no coverage by Canadian media even though the quoted documents were publicly released by a House of Commons committee.

The Times speculated that the auto industry's importance to the Canadian economy was the reason why Transport Canada has been taking a far softer approach to Toyota than its American counterpart.

Perhaps the Canadian media also value commerce over safety. Or perhaps Canada's overly severe libel laws have left a lasting and chilling legacy.

Whatever the reason, Canadians deserve better from their media.

---------

This posting marks a return after a one-week hiatus. It's my policy to post every Tuesday. My apologies for missing last week.

Interesting attempt to defuse Jaffer scandal

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:41:00 +0000

One difference between the Guergis/Jaffer affair and other political scandals is that the government seems to be playing a dual role of accuser and defender.

Last Friday, Environment Minister Jim Prentice rose in the House of Commons to disclose that former Tory MP Rahim Jaffer had made representations on behalf of a private company to one of his aides. By implication, Jaffer was working as lobbyist even though he is not registered in the federal registrar of lobbyists.

Subsequently, Prentice disclosed in the Commons on Monday that those representations were made by Jaffer to the environment minister's aide in the office of Helena Guergis, Jaffer's spouse and status of women minister at the time.

Earlier last week, Jaffer and his business partner had to endure aggressively hostile Commons committee questioning from his former caucus colleagues.

At that hearing, Jaffer said he hardly ever was in the office of his spouse after he was defeated in the 2008 election and certainly did not do any lobbying there. In fact, Jaffer denied doing any lobbying under the definition set out in federal legislation.

Thanks to the minister of environment, Jaffer will have some explaining to do.

Whenever the government is attacked by the Opposition in this affair, it goes on the defensive by reminding us that the Prime Minister turned over allegations against Guergis to the RCMP and the Commons Ethics Commissioner.

So on one hand, the government has likely sunk Jaffer. On the other hand, it is vigorously defending its actions in this three-week affair. It is plaintiff and defendant in the court of public opinion at the same time.

In the short term, the dual strategy makes sense. By making a target of its former caucus chairman, the government is trying to keep the focus on Jaffer in much the way one tries to localize an infection.

So far, the government's strategy may be working because the Jaffer/Guergis affair has yet to have a major impact on any party's standing in the polls.

That may be because Canadians are disillusioned with politics in general. But it may also be because the government has been able to keep the daily narrative focused on Jaffer rather than the government's actions.

In the long-term, the Tories may still pay a price. This was a government that was elected on an ethics platform. Its first major piece of legislation was the Federal Accountability Act, which was supposed to clean up Ottawa and open the place to scrutiny.

In fairness, Jaffer may be innocent of illegal activity. There are loopholes in the legislation that allow lobbying without registration.

However, most voters won't notice legislative nuances and could decide over time that nothing has changed in Ottawa since the Conservatives were elected in 2006. That makes the government's strategy very risky.

Quite a body count so far in Guergis affair

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:05:00 +0000

In his 1965 book, The Shape of Scandal: A study of a government in crisis, Canadian journalist Richard Gwyn made a very telling observation about political scandal. Once a scandal has caught the public imagination, it takes on a life of its own with some surprise victims.

Long out of print, The Shape of Scandal documented how the prison break of a drug dealer in Quebec consumed Parliament, led to a royal commission, the resignation of a justice minister and hurt the careers of countless others during the years of the Pearson minority government.

To this day, this scandal is remembered by all sides on Parliament Hill as an affair that got out of hand like a horrendous brush fire.

Those involved in the current controversy surrounding Helena Guergis, Rahim Jaffer and other characters might like to scout out some second-had book stores for Gwyn's book.

Aside from Ottawa's most famous former power couple and business promoter Nazim Gillani, this affair has taken a large casualty list in under two weeks.

Derrick Snowdy, the private detective who started this all by making allegations, still unclear, to a Conservative party lawyer, is under almost as much scrutiny as the three central players.

Mary Dawson, Parliament's ethics commissioner, should probably be thinking about career options once this affair is over. So far she has looked indecisive and less than eager to investigate.

This officer of Parliament has already antagonized the Opposition because of a couple of goofy past rulings. Although government advertising on the recovery plan looked a lot like campaign propaganda, according to Dawson it did not violate conflict of interest rules because the Conservative party is neither a person nor a corporation. Huh?

Is Dawson is using every possible loophole and pretext to avoid investigating the government?She is bound to be in Opposition MP sights as this affair continues.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper may have appeared to be doing the right thing at first by quickly calling in Dawson and the RCMP. But since nothing much of substance has emerged against Guergis so far, he may have been a little too quick.

There is now wide speculation he used the slimmest of pretexts to rid himself of a gaff-prone minister. The Prime Minister has something to lose in this affair just as the other players do.

Political scandals rarely result in formal legal action. But they damage careers of anyone in their path.

Second-rate scandal shows Tories losing control of narrative

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:29:00 +0000

As scandals go, the Helena Guergis affair is pretty second rate. It pales against the sponsorship scandal of the Liberals -- at least so far -- and hardly rates among the ongoing peccadilloes of the Mulroney government.

But the current government should be concerned just the same. As we have seen time and time again, what matters on Parliament Hill is not the actual transgression but how the government deals with it.

We don't know why the Prime Minister has called in the RCMP to investigate allegations by a "third party" into the former minister's conduct because the government claims neither it nor the RCMP can say.

(Strangely the RCMP had no problem announcing in the middle of the 2006 election that the Martin government was under criminal investigation for possible insider trading violations -- allegations that didn't go anywhere. Or how as Prime Minister Brian Mulroney able to explain why he was firing Andre Bissonette from cabinet in the Oerlikon affair?)

We all love a mystery. That's why this story has legs and will continue to do so for another week at least. The Prime Minister likely regrets already not being more forthcoming.

As an added bonus, Helena Guergis has a reputation as Ottawa's equivalent to Leona Helmsley, the Queen of Mean. This is why there are enough former employees of the Hon. Helena to fill a good part of the Charlottetown Airport.

When it is time for the Tories to do a post-mortem on the Guergis affair, they might want to look at issue management.

Last fall the governing party was able to swat away an inconvenient issue like an annoying gnat. But since the prorogation affair, this government hasn't been able to control the narrative that comes out of Ottawa daily.

They are like a sports franchise that has lost its winning ways and can't get the magic back.

So far the Opposition has been unable to capitalize. It will be interesting to see how long the Tories can count on their opponents' inability to take advantage.

Government could learn something from Hillary Clinton

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:23:00 +0000

Things may be quiet on Parliament Hill this week because of the Easter break. But at the Prime Minister's Office across the street in the Langevin Block, they are probably still dusting themselves off and assessing the damage after Hurricane Hillary blew into town last week.

From time to time, all governments have to deal with a critical comment or subtle double entendre from a visiting dignitary. But three critical comments in one week from one foreign VIP -- the U.S. Secretary of State no less -- will not be contained in a couple of covering statements.

Hillary Clinton has put Ottawa on notice to change its ways in foreign policy if it wants to retain Washington's confidence.

For the record while in Ottawa for the G8 foreign ministers' meeting, she said:

The Americans are distressed to see Canadian forces leave Afghanistan in 2011 as the government plans.
Family planning has to be included in the Harper government's G8 initiative to protect the lives of mothers and children in the developing world.
Excluding three member states of the Arctic Council -- Finland, Sweden and Iceland-- from Ottawa's ill-fated summit on the Arctic was a mistake because those countries have legitimate interests in that region.

Her first point was likely of least concern to the government because most Canadians are opposed to their troops staying any longer in Afghanistan than necessary. However, it will be interesting to see how much military Ottawa winds up leaving there as special or policing task forces because of American pressure.

The family planning issue is more serious because somebody in the PMO appears to have decided to turn an inherently good initiative into a wedge issue to appease the Tory core vote.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon initially said there would be no family planning component in the motherhood initiative. Then he said he misspoke himself after much obfuscation. Now the Harper government has boxed itself into a position in which it can't give a clear answer one way or the other. Canada's G8 partners must be quite befuddled.

As for the Arctic issue, the Arctic Council was set up as a forum for countries with an interest in that region to air their differences and views in an atmosphere of good faith and trust. Canada was a co-founder.

Again, some genius made the decision to send the message that Canada would only deal with the big guys.

Granted the summit, held as a sidebar to the G8 meeting, was officially open to the five Arctic coastal states -- Canada, the U.S., Russia, Denmark/Greenland and Norway. But it is hard to believe Ottawa would want to hear from Greenland and not Iceland. Why Norway and Denmark but not Finland and Sweden?

As Hillary was probably thinking to herself -- dumb, dumb, dumb. If the current government learns from Hillary's swats on the nose, then she will have done Ottawa a huge favour.

Putting petty politics ahead of diplomatic protocol and leadership sends the wrong message all around.

-------------

Speaking of dumb messaging, I would be remiss not to comment on the Vatican's increasingly nasty PR campaign against media coverage of allegations of child abuse inside the church.

The Vatican is behaving like allegations are being directed at the Pope himself. In reality, of course, the institution he represents has mishandled a longstanding problem and the buck stops with the person in charge.

But showing contrition might also open the door to other hot issues like getting rid of celibacy or opening the priesthood to women. And the Vatican would rather damage its own credibility and moral authority than open itself to modern thinking.

Could the Liberals' strange weekend be the beginning of a party renaissance?

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:49:00 +0000

You have to give the Grits credit for having a weekend policy conference that was, well, different from most political gabfests.

Instead of the usual partisan hoopla before a friendly crowd, the Liberals had speakers telling the party faithful in Montreal what they were doing wrong and why Canada's former natural governing party needed a collective slap upside the head.

Retired diplomat Robert Fowler went so far as to tell the Liberals they had lost their souls and principles to the point of saying anything to get back in power. Ouch.

In fairness, Fowler also accused the governing Tories of pandering to the Jewish vote to the point of ignoring the truth to win a majority. But that part of Fowler's speech was not as widely reported because it did not fit the media's issue frame of Liberals being in deep trouble.

But Fowler, Canada's longest serving ambassador to the United Nations before he retired, told the Liberals they don't stand for much any more.

In another bizarre twist, the Liberals head from Derek Burney. Yes, that Derek Burney, the chief of staff to former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and the head of the Tories' transition team when they took power in 2006.

It is no secret that Burney and the current Prime Minister can't stand each other. Burney no doubt relished an opportunity to send a message to Stephen by being a guest of the Liberals.

Regardless of what you might think of this bizarre conference on the weekend, be sure of one thing. It was part of deliberate strategy.

The Liberals are trying to turn their problems into a campaign asset just as they were able to make an impossibly large deficit into a political asset in the 1990s.

First you say the worst possible things about yourself (or in this case invite someone to your function to say the same things) before the rival party can. That way you have established a bottom benchmark in the minds of the media, as in things are so bad even the speakers at a Liberal conference told them they had lost their principles.

The Liberals likely now hope the media will be looking for recovery from that bottom point here on in. If the strategy works, the Liberals will have changed the media's narrative from a plummeting party to one that is recovering.

This time, the strategy may not be so easy. The media, after all, could decide the Liberals are a spent force as Canada's centrist party and turn their attentions elsewhere.

But the Liberals are likely betting there is enough fatigue with the Harper regime out there, that Canadians will want to believe there is an alternative government in the waiting.

They might be right.

More strange messages from Ottawa

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:45:00 +0000

For a city obsessed with message control, it is truly amazing how many muddled messages come out of Ottawa. There have been some outstanding examples in the past week or so.

Let's start with the Liberals for a change.

For months, the Liberals have been talking about their great policy renewal conference, which will be held this weekend in Montreal.

This is supposed to be a seminal session for policies to be implemented when the voters come to their senses and put a Liberal back in 24 Sussex Drive.

In other words, it is supposed to be a modern version of the 1960 Liberal thinkfest at Kingston that resulted in a Canadian flag, national healthcare and the Canadian Pension Plan, or a repeat of the 1992 Aylmer, QC., conference that resulted in the famous Red Book of promises that put Jean Chretien in power the following year.

Late last week, the party brain trust announced Liberal MPs and Senators are not invited to the 2010 conference because the event is supposed to be non-partisan. That's right, a conference to ponder policies and platforms that will put the Grits back in power is supposed to be non-partisan with the absence of Grits who are in Parliament already.

The decision was probably well intentioned -- most dumb ideas usually are -- but what kind of message does that send? If the Liberals really think they can regain power by excluding those who must answer to the voter, perhaps they are demonstrating that they need more time on the Opposition benches.

It's the dumbest idea since somebody decided the Conservatives could remain free of corruption if lobbyists were told to stay the hell away from annual Christmas party. Maybe that person is now working for the Liberals.

As for convoluted messages by the governing party, there have been quite a few since the ill-fated (and quite stupid) bid to reword the national anthem.

First the government Tories said their much ballyhooed G8 initiative on mothers and childcare would no include family planning. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said the program is about preserving life.

Then International Development Minister Bev Oda said family planning was in the program without explaining the reason behind the flip-flop.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the so-called 10 per centers -- partisan circulars MPs can send at taxpayer expense to other ridings in amounts equaling 10 per cent of their own constituencies -- should be banned. But his own caucus voted against getting rid of them.

Harper also says Helena Guergis, the Status of Women minister, will stay in cabinet. But a growing number of Tory MPs are telling the media of an internal push to get rid of her.

In the Tories' case, the confusion is probably a direct result of a government obsessed with managing (or trying to manage) the Afghan detainee crisis at the expense of everything else. This is how scandal eats away at a government.

Strange messages all, but the main message to the voters likely is that the two main parties are where they deserve to be in the polls -- deadlocked with no signs of growing much support.

---

A few weeks ago, I declared this blog a Tiger-free zone. But the two televised interviews Tiger Woods gave on the Golf Channel and ESPN over the weekend deserve a mention out of fairness.

The haughtiness Tiger showed in that one-way press conference a few weeks ago was gone. In the the weekend interviews, Tiger was quite clearly sincere, contrite and forthcoming.

He may not have saved some of the sponsors he lost. But had he done those interviews in the beginning of his ordeal he likely would have saved himself a lot of grief.

Now he should be allowed to rebuild his life.

Now we have a viral prime minister

noreply@blogger.com (Gord) — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:24:00 +0000

Tonight at 7 p.m. EDT Prime Minister Stephen Harper may make political history by conducting a virtual town hall on YouTube to answer selected questions.

The Prime Minister's Office says the questions he answers will be those determined to be the most popular in an online poll that was closed off Sunday. Even before online voting concluded, there was wide speculation about which questions will be chosen for answers.

After all, it is hard to imagine a control-freak government that has maintained iron-fist control over information and communications with its citizens is going to permit a freewheeling discussion on issues on or offline.

But we'll see.

It may take a few days before all assessments are in about the PM's virtual performance. Clearly, he is taking a risk.

Ever since he prorogued Parliament on Dec. 30, Harper has been under constant attack and mockery in the social media. The latest is the Facebook site, " Can This Onion Ring Get More Fans Than Stephen Harper?" The onion ring is winning handily.

The polls have been showing for months that Harper is losing ground with Generation Y voters and soon-to-be voters. In fact, the kids' dislike of him has been getting palpable.

So it is understandable that the Prime Minister's communications brain trust would want to try YouTube for some direct engagement.

Whether the PM does well tonight or not, we likely are seeing a new dimension in Canadian politics. Others will try it as Generation Y gains more clout in polling numbers.

Anything that encourages citizen engagement is welcome in a democratic society. But already there are questions that should be debated.

For example, if Google, which controls YouTube, decides to broadcast a partisan speech by the Prime Minister, as it did last week, should it not offer the same consideration to the Opposition?

So far it hasn't.

The television networks follow protocols of political fairness when it comes to face time with the voters. Shouldn't Google?

And ultimately, if the PM and his handlers want to win over disaffected voters they might want to try a low-tech solution -- losing the compulsion to control all discussion.