Making Sense with Nicholls

Robocall Scandal Likely Won't Hurt the Tories (Yet)

2012-02-27T08:27:00.010-05:00

I suspect Prime Minister Harper’s enemies and detractors see the Robcall scandal as the silver bullet that will pierce his government’s Teflon armour.

But will it? I doubt it.

And yes I know all the sordid details about the crank calls, the voter suppression tactics and the damage to our democratic process. I have also heard all the heated reaction.

Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae says these Robocalls contributed to the defeat of Liberal candidates in at least 27 ridings; columnist Michael Den Tandt says the scandal means “the legitimacy of the Tory majority is in question.” Some are even calling it the equivalent of Watergate.

Sounds pretty serious.

So why do I say this won’t hurt the Tories?

Well, you need to consider three important issues, one is logical, one legal, and one political.

Consider the logic. How can Rae or anyone else possibly say the Robocalls contributed to the defeat of Liberal candidates? Where’s the proof? Seems to me the only way to test Rae’s hypothesis is to go back to May 2, 2011 and run the election again without the Robocalls and see how the results change.

But as far as I know no one has access to a time machine.

What about the legal aspect? Well I don’t want to sound like a bleeding heart or anything, but under our system people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. As of yet we have no real evidence as to who was behind those Robocalls. So the rush to judge Harper or his party or some 23 year old kid is premature.

Yet surely just the perception of a Tory scandal will seriously undermine the government’s popular support, right?

Wrong.

And this leads me to the politics of scandals.

The fact is most voters believe all politicians are basically a shady lot. So most scandals don’t really shock them. Indeed, when given a choice between a competent crook or an honest fool, they will pick the crook almost every time because, heck, at least he’s smart.

And voters want smart leaders, leaders for instance, who can manage the economy.

This is why the Tories were not hurt by the “in and out” Elections Canada scandal or by the Bev Oda “Not” scandal or by the Speaker of the House “in contempt” scandal.

But what about the “Adscam scandal”? Didn’t that kill the Liberals?

I’d say no. I’d say what really hurt the Liberals wasn’t the scandal, but former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s over the top reaction to it. That plus Martin and later Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff were basically incompetent politicians.

I suspect that had the crafty and tough Jean Chretien hung around a little longer, the Liberal Party would be in much better shape today.

Now none of this is to say the Robocall scandal will leave the Tories completely unscathed. In fact, it has likely tarnished their brand.

And these scandals could also have a cumulative effect. That is one day voters will remember all this stuff when and if they are looking for reasons not to like Harper.

But right now they are just not looking for reasons.

UPDATE:

One thing I never imagined was the Liberals would actually help the Tories off the hook regarding the Robocall scandal.

But that's what's happening.

The Liberals now admit a staff member in their research bureau was responsible for publishing "Vikileaks" which dished out "Dirty Tricks" style attacks on Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

This now gives the Tories a chance to go from defence to offence and will reinforce the notion that all politicians are the same.

Robocalls, Scandals and Politics

2012-02-25T10:19:00.003-05:00

The media is abuzz these days with the so-called “Robocall” scandal.

As the whole world knows by now, Elections Canada has traced fraudulent phone calls made during the last federal election to a company with links to the Conservative Party.

According to media reports crank “robocalls” discouraged voting for a particular party, or incorrectly advised electors of changed polling locations.

For their part the Conservatives have denied any role in the phone calls and have denounced such tactics, as they should. Suppressing votes in this manner is about as sleazy as you can get.

Yet Tory denials have not stopped many in the media and elsewhere from blaming such tactics on what they call the Conservative Party’s “ends justifies the means culture”.

And certainly it’s true the Conservative Party is aggressive and as I have argued myself sometimes their aggressiveness needs to be tempered.

But the problem goes beyond any one party. Indeed, the robocall incident is really just a symptom of what’s wrong with politics in general.

Sadly, elections are not about competing visions and may the best idea win. For partisans they are more like a life or death competition where the only thing that matters is winning.

In short, many in politics are guided by one simple principle: “We must beat the other guy no matter what it takes.”

And as long as this “winning at all costs” mentality exists it will inevitably lead to cheating and to “Dirty Tricks.”

This is why political lawn signs are stolen or vandalized; this is why dirt about opposing candidates are dug up; this why opposition phone lines are jammed; and this is why crank robocalls are made. Who cares about ideas?; who cares about right or wrong?

Then when one side does it, the other side figures it must respond in kind.

And please, let’s be honest: all parties from time to time resort to less than savory tactics.

It’s just human nature; it’s just politics.

Gerry's Political Maxims

2012-02-20T10:22:00.003-05:00

After working in the political communications biz for more than 25 years, I have learned a lot of things. I just couldn’t help it! Anyway, based on my experience I have come up with a list rules which I call “Gerry’s Political Maxims”. Here are the first 50:

1) The most powerful emotion in politics is fear.

2) The second most powerful emotion is hate.

3) Voters will always prefer a crook to a fool.

4) When it comes to policy ideas, vagueness works better than clarity.

5) Get voters to react, not think.

6) Whenever possible employ the “Us” vs “Them” dynamic

7) Don’t use attack ads unless you have to, and you usually have to.

8) The less time you have, the more important money is.

9) Don’t betray your base.

10) If you can’t communicate a political message in 15 seconds or less, you’re doing something wrong.

11) Never get defensive, always attack.

12) Stay on message.

13) If you fight with the media do it for strategic reasons, not out of anger.

14) Always get the facts right.

15) Voters don’t care what you think; they care what they think.

16) Read public polls with a lot salt on hand.

17) Never repeat an attack

18) Never talk about money

19) Mistakes will always happen, just move on.

20) The media is obsessed with the “Politics of politics”

21) If you can’t get people to like you, get them to agree with you

22) Every message must reflect and advance your strategic objective

23) Don’t trust anyone in politics

24) No plan survives contact with the enemy; be prepared to adapt

25) Three of the most important things in politics are money, money and money.

26) What really matters in a political poll are the crosstabs.

27) Most voters don’t care about ideology, they care about values.

28) When you can’t avoid it; embrace it.

29) Having the right enemies is just as important as having the right friends.

30) Use your best ads last.

31) Define or be defined.

32) No matter how bad things get, always keep cool

33) Don’t worry about media bias, they are out to get you, but they are also out to get everybody else.

34) Your opponent runs “negative ads” your ads are always “comparative” or “truthful.”

35) The principle of politics are like the principles of physics – they apply everywhere.

36) Perception is reality.

37) All politics is tribal

38) If you don’t like a question, don’t answer it.

39) Resist the urge to improvise

40) Use humour with care.

41) Repetition of a good message is good, really, really good.

42) Don’t underestimate the importance of luck.

43) If it’s stupid but works, then it isn’t stupid
.

44) If you want a quick agreement among a disparate group, find a common enemy.

45) When your opponent falls to his knees … kick him again.

46) When speaking to Partisans beware of “applause lines”

47) In every campaign somebody will panic.

48) If you really want to get nasty, use mail not TV

49) Never speculate in public

50) Idealism and politics don’t mix.

Dirty Tricks and the Internet

2012-02-18T09:39:00.003-05:00

Ok, there has been lots of discussion and outrage about the “Vikileaks” Twitter campaign directed against Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

But what does it all mean?

Well first off, there is no question this was a nasty “Dirty Tricks” attack. It was personal, it was vicious, it was mean-spirited.

Which is why it’s getting so much attention.

But setting aside the ethics involved, you have to concede this enterprise was also a masterstroke of political insurgency warfare.

Without spending any money, and with only a little research, the creator of the Vikileaks Twitter account managed to inflict a serious wound on a federal cabinet minister.

And make no mistake, this did hurt Toews. Overnight he became a national laughing stock.

It also likely helped to focus public attention on the government’s controversial bill on Internet surveillance.

That’s pretty impressive.

And, of course, now the Conservatives are screaming “Dirty Tricks” and accusing the NDP of being behind the attack, without any real evidence.

This is not surprising. According to the standard Political Manual, whenever you get hit with some kind of damaging smear attack, it’s good strategy to feign outrage and pin the blame on your opponent, regardless of the facts.

At any rate, whoever pulled this stunt had better be good at covering his or her tracks, because the Tories would love to dump a train load of hurt on the perpetrator.

Mind you, what’s interesting about this attack isn’t the Dirty Tricks aspect. Like it or not, Dirty Tricks campaigns have been around as long as politics. That's not a pleasant thought, but it's reality.

In fact, I am pretty sure somebody in Ancient Rome handed out anonymously-written papyrus parchments containing embarrassing details about Julius Caesar.

What makes the Vikileaks campaign so fascinating is the medium it employed, i.e. Social Media.

Again, using just a free, simple Twitter account, somebody managed to rock the government and entrance the media. So in other words, anonymous mudslinging has never been easier!

What this means is we better get used to more of this cyber style Dirty Tricks politics in the future.

Yep, we are heading for a nasty new world.

Harper's China Policy Explained, Sort of.

2012-02-10T19:48:00.001-05:00

If you’re reading the news these days you know that Prime Minister Stephen Harper thinks China is very important.

That’s why he only takes it out when special guests visit for dinner.

But that’s beside the point.

More important is that Prime Minister Harper has had a big change of heart when it comes to China the country.

At one time, not so long ago, the Prime Minister had a “right wingy” take on the Red Chinese. They were Commies, they abused human rights, they abused Tibet, they abused the Dalai Lama.

But that was before he considered the crucial, geo-political strategic ramifications otherwise known as Chinese money.

So after carefully considering the issue, the Prime Minister came to see China as less of a Red Menace and more as a good business partner.

That means, it’s Goodbye human rights; Goodbye Tibet, and, of course, Goodbye Dolly, …I mean Dalai.

And while this might upset some “conservative purists”, it’s really just good politics.

To see why, just consider his current trip to China, a trip that saw Harper score three impressive foreign policy goals:

He carried out the extremely important task of posing for photo ops in exotic locations with adorable Panda bears.
He signed several key business deals meaning it will be easier for China to steal Canada’s closely guarded trade secrets, such as Tim Horton’s new coffee cup sizes.
The Prime Minister sent a direct diplomatic message to American President Barack Obama. And that message went something like this: “Hey Barack. I am in a country with 1 billion frickin people. And guess what? Not one of them is a tree hugging, Hollywood celebrity. They want our oil. So suck on that!”

Now let me admit, all these ideas on China and Harper may or may not be accurate, but they sure made sense when I dreamed them up while waiting for my order at the Chinese restaurant.

My Earey Experience

2012-02-03T12:19:00.004-05:00

The job of being a TV pundit really isn’t all that hard; you usually just smile into a camera and answer questions with what you hope are plausible-sounding answers.

But when things go wrong, televised punditry can turn into the stuff of nightmares.

Recently, for instance, I endured just such a trauma while appearing on one of those pundit TV panels.

It all started in typical fashion. About 15 minutes before I was to go on the air a producer took me to a small little room in the studio.

After hooking me up with a lapel mike and an earpiece the producer left me on my own, sitting at one of those newsroom-style desks. The camera I was to look at was remote controlled, so there was not even a cameraman to keep me company. I was truly alone.

There was nothing to do but wait. So I took advantage of my alone time to focus on preparing for my upcoming interview – I sat up straight, made sure my tie wasn’t crooked and most importantly I started to imagine all the things that could go wrong.

Would I blurt out something stupid on the air, would I mangle my words, would I get upstaged by a fellow panelist ….or would my ear piece pop out?

As I pondered this last possibility, I decided just to be on the safe side to cram the plastic little doohickey deeper and deeper into my ear canal.

As I pressed it in, I could hear the reassuring feed from the show, my only contact with the outside world …. but then suddenly the sound abruptly stopped. I was for all intents and purposes, deaf.

I realized with horror that thanks to my fidgeting with the earpiece it had become disconnected from its wire. I had broken it! And I was going to be on live TV in just a few short minutes, unable to hear the host or anybody else. There was nobody to help me.

Disaster loomed.

Fortunately, as a veteran of countless TV appearances, I knew exactly what to do under these circumstances: I panicked.

I frantically dug out the plastic earpiece, fearing all the time that I would suddenly appear on TV with my index finger stuck in the side of my head.

Luckily I managed to retrieve it before the red light on the camera lit up. But time was running out. I quickly re-attached the wire, and once again I could hear the show.

Success!

Or at least partial success. My repair job was delicate to say the least. After re-inserting the earpiece, I quickly realized that if I made any slight movement of my head the wire would once again detach.

To keep everything in place, I had to keep perfectly still.

Before I could fret about it too much, I was on the air.

They say the secret to appearing on TV is to look relaxed. Well I must have looked about as relaxed as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

Instead of focusing on coming up with witty comments about possible reforms to old age pensions, all I was thinking was: “Please little sound wire, don’t come loose.”

And the wire did stay in, but unfortunately near the end of my segment, while answering a question on the future prospects of the NDP, the whole earpiece plopped out.

So as gracefully and nonchalantly as possible I placed it back trying all the while not to look like a complete dork.

In my mind, it was a humiliating catastrophe.

In fact, I am sure when my on-air segment was over, the viewers saw me not as a political genius, but as a grim-faced, stiff-necked, nervous-looking guy who had a piece of plastic fall out of his ear.

But on the bright side, I was still on TV!

The Queen of Sillyland

2012-01-28T11:11:00.002-05:00

Sometimes I get the feeling certain Canadian political journalists don’t actually live in Canada. Instead, it seems they live in a faraway place I call Sillyland.

I imagine it as a nice little country that has only one ironclad law: Anyone who lives there must write columns on Canadian politics that make absolutely no sense.

And in my mind, the Queen of Sillyland must be Ottawa Citizen columnist Susan Riley.

I say that because she recently came out with a column that was silly in the extreme.

First off, her column pointed out that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a war-mongering, environment-destroying, big corporation-loving, right-wing zealot.

Of course, there is nothing new about this.

Open just about any newspaper to the editorial pages on any day of the week and you will see the exact same comments.

But what sets this column apart is who Riley blames for what she thinks is Canada’s sorry political state.

Why did supposedly left-leaning Canadians elect as Prime Minster a man who the media keeps telling us is a cross between Genghis Khan, Darth Vader and Benito Mussolini?

And how does Harper continue to stay atop the polls no matter how much he angers Margaret Atwood and David Suzuki?

Well, Riley doesn’t fault the media. As she puts it, “the media aren't to blame. We hector from the sidelines (guilty!), or, more usefully, uncover hypocrisies and small scandals.”

Nor does the problem rest with the Liberals or NDP. Writes Riley: “Opposition MPs - notably Bob Rae, Charlie Angus, Elizabeth May; but others, too - advance persuasive arguments, based on evidence, de-bunking Conservative crime policy, and other initiatives.”

So who is at fault for keeping Harper in power?

Well, according to Riley, the real villain is you. Yes that’s right, you and all other Canadians are to blame for Harper’s puzzling success.

The problem is rampant apathy, or as she puts it: “Many have given up - in cynicism or despair. They turn their back on politics, don't bother to vote, even imagine it is fashionable to remain aloof. They claim all politicians are the same, but they aren't. They claim it doesn't matter which party holds power, but it does.”

Translation: Canadians are stupid.

According to Riley if we were smarter we would have elected a Coalition government made up of arrogant Liberals, wacky socialists and Quebec separatists!

To bolster her case she also quotes NDP leadership contender Nathan Cullen who says the Tories are purposely cultivating public indifference.

"It is a deliberate strategy to turn people off," says Cullen. "He either bores people to death, or uses wedge politics. People don't see themselves in the conversation."

This from a man who is part of a leadership campaign that’s so dull it even makes Harper seem charismatic by comparison.

Of course, there is an alternative theory that Riley doesn’t even bother to mention: Maybe, just maybe, Canadians elected the Conservatives to a majority and continue to support them in the polls because perhaps they actually support the government’s policies.

OK that might be too radical and heretical a notion for Riley to accept.

So how about this idea: If Canadians are as apathetic as Riley maintains, then perhaps it’s because the NDP and Liberals are not offering voters much in the way of a credible alternative to Harper. I mean just because Riley finds Liberal and NDP arguments “persuasive” doesn’t mean voters should as well.

Yet what makes Riley’s column truly and unforgivably silly is the part where she writes: “If Occupiers had simply voted en masse in May, we wouldn't have a majority Conservative government today.”

Really?

How does Riley know this? Is she some sort of mystical pollster who can predict hypothetical election results?

Plus, how many Canadian Occupiers were there: 5,000, 10,000, 50,000?

I am no statistician but considering the size of the total voting population, the Occupiers are a drop in the bucket, especially since they are scattered across the country.

So it’s extremely doubtful Occupiers voting “en masse” would have changed last year’s election outcome to any significant degree.

And given that the Occupy Movement lacked a single coherent message, who would they have voted for anyway: the Libertarian Party, the NDP, the Greens, the Marxist-Trotskyite-Anarchist Party?

It just doesn’t make sense.

But then I shouldn’t be too hard on Riley. After all, her column will likely win a Pulitzer Prize in Sillyland.

The NDP’s Dilemma

2012-01-26T14:06:00.000-05:00

There are people in this country who find the NDP leadership race fascinating.

That’s good news for the NDP.

The bad news, however, is the people who find it fascinating are also the same people who enjoy watching paint dry.

Meanwhile, everybody else in

Canada

is pretty much bored out of theirs skulls with the race.

Of course, you can’t really blame this state of affairs on the NDP leadership candidates. After all, it’s not as if they are doing anything wrong. In fact, the leadership race is unfolding exactly as it should according to Civics textbooks.

The candidates are sticking to the issues, engaging in polite debate and refraining from any sort of “mud slinging.”

But ironically that’s the problem. Well-mannered, respectful political campaigns that stick to issues are by their very nature dull affairs.

And in politics dullness kills.

For one thing, boring campaigns make it difficult to attract media attention. That’s because the media really isn’t interested in issues or policies. What does interest political journalists is what I like to call the “politics of politics.”

In other words, the media cares about “horse race” stuff: polling numbers, who is ahead, who is behind and who has the momentum?

And the media also likes conflict and emotion; this is why negative attack ads always make news.

In short, a political race will get more column space in newspapers and hits on TV, if it has the drama of a “TV Reality” show.

So far, the NDP race has all the excitement of a chess match.

And this turns off more than just the media.

A dull campaign also makes it harder to mobilize party supporters. Think about it. Aside from hard-core party partisans, who wants to trudge to a gymnasium on a cold January night just to watch politicians argue over the importance of infrastructure funding?

At any rate, one NDP leadership contender, Brian Topp, recognizes the dullness problem.

Speaking recently to the media Topp declared: “If New Democrats are going to win, we can't be boring." He also suggested that unless the race gets a little spicier, Canadians will tune out and the party will suffer in the next election.

But here’s the dilemma the NDP faces: the party could also suffer in the next election if the leadership race actually does get spicier.

Consider, for instance, this scenario: Let’s say certain contenders in the race, after consulting their own polls, determine they are falling behind. Let’s further suppose they have no chance of boosting their support.

What do they do?

Well, the answer is obvious: attack the front-runner.

This might sound crass but it just makes sense; if you can’t increase your support, the only alternative left is to drive your opponent’s numbers down. And the only way to drive your opponent’s numbers down is to go negative.

We see this dynamic at work right now in the United States Republican presidential primary race, where Republican nominees have been hammering the front-runner Mitt Romney.

Watch for the same thing to happen in the NDP leadership race.

Mind you, all the candidates will deny this; they will talk about the need to remain positive and united. But sooner or later the instinct for political survival will kick in and the gloves will come off.

And when that happens things will escalate fast, with each side attacking and counter-attacking. Before you know it the NDP leadership race will resemble a UFC brawl.

That could cause a lot of wounds and bitterness.

But on the plus side, it will also generate lots of excitement and plenty of news coverage.

(This article originally appeared in the Ottawa Hill Times)

NCC Fundraising Letter Gets an "F"

2012-01-17T15:19:00.017-05:00

Sometimes politics slams into irony.

For instance, last year’s convincing Conservative Party’s victory is a double-edged sword for conservative advocacy groups. On the one hand, it helps to have a friendly government in power, but on other hand it hurts fundraising. After all, these are good times for conservatives. And good times are bad times for fundraisers. It’s more difficult to raise money when there is no sense of urgency and no sense conservative values are threatened by nasty Liberals or socialists. In short, victory leads to complacency.

Anyway, I bring this up because somebody recently sent me a copy of the National Citizens Coalition’s fundraising “renewal” letter. It interested me because I wanted to see how the NCC was dealing with this very real fundraising challenge. Turns out the answer is -- not well.

Now let me back up a bit and note that as someone who once worked for the NCC I can tell you the renewal letter, which goes out in early January, is the group’s most important fundraising letter of the year. It can make or break the group’s budget. Consequently, the renewal letter must sparkle. It has to really rock the donors. That’s why in my day we used to literally spend weeks honing and polishing its message with agonizing re-write after re-write.

Unfortunately, this 2012 NCC renewal letter looks like it was scribbled out in about 20 minutes. In fact, it fails on just about every level a fundraising letter can fail: It fails stylistically, it fails ideologically and it fails as piece of political communication.

To see what I mean check out my analysis below. I have reproduced the letter in its entirety with my comments in bold font. But be warned: The NCC letter is painful to read. So if you wish to avoid any possible trauma skip to the bottom for the page for my summation.

With that caveat out of the way, let’s start:

Dear NCC supporter,

This past year has certainly been a remarkable one for

Canada

, yet 2012 promises to be a year full of both global and national challenges.

For the past several years, when I have sat down to write out my end of year reflections on the state of politics in our country I have been beset by certain doubts. Year after year of minority governments and constant instability in Ottawa meant that anyone looking for meaningful change had better be prepared for an uphill battle.

The first paragraph in a direct mail pitch is always the most important. A bad opening could cause a busy and distracted reader to toss the letter in the nearest trash can. Unfortunately for the NCC this opening is trite and fails to pull the reader in. If anything it’s jarring and confusing. To see what I mean just re-read the first few sentences. It begins with a line about 2012 promising “to be a year full of both global and national challenges” which leads me as a reader to expect the next sentence will elaborate as to what kind of challenges? Instead, the focus of the letter abruptly changes. Suddenly the writer is talking about the stability of past minority governments. Do you see the problem? Unless a letter seamlessly and logically flows from one idea to the next you risk losing a reader or at the very least aggravating him. Also where’s the drama? You need to inspire your supporters at the onset not lecture them on the history of minority governments.

Even a “standard template” opening like this would work better:

Dear NCC Supporter:

The past year was one of the most successful years in the NCC’s long history.

In a year that saw many challenges and opportunities the NCC made a difference, standing up for your values.

And it’s all thanks to your loyal and generous support. We could not have done it without you!

The National Citizens Coalition persevered through it all, and with your steadfast support we helped make sure the economy was front and centre in last May’s federal election.

The result? Canadians elected a strong majority government. Now, as we look towards the coming year, will this government truly be more conservative? Will they show the strength to reduce spending, reduce taxes and tackle the looming crisis of skyrocketing healthcare budgets?

Lots of fuzzy language here. The writer says the NCC “persevered through it all”. What does that mean? I suppose it means the NCC managed to survive during the minority years? That may be true but it’s hardly a great claim to mobilize donors: “Hey look at us we persevered! Send us your money!” Also it’s here we get the first mention of an NCC accomplishment from the previous year: “We helped make sure the economy was front and centre in last May’s federal election?” Interesting claim, but vague. And when it comes to raising money vagueness doesn’t work. You need to provide concrete accomplishments or some sort of clear victories. Also, NCC supporters don’t care about the “economy”, they care about fiscal responsibility, smaller government, individual freedom. What I mean is when speaking to ideologically-oriented donors like NCC supporters you need to use ideological language. And speaking of vagueness to say the NCC kept the economy “front and centre” is also meaningless. Be more specific. Did the NCC run TV ads, did it sponsor national debates, did it set up a website? We don’t know because the letter doesn’t tell us. Donors aren’t mind readers. You can’t assume they know what the NCC did over the past year. The writer then goes on to make a completely unsubstantiated claim about the NCC’s actions leading to a “strong majority government.” (I guess the Conservatives had nothing to do with it.) And by the way NCC supporters are small “c” conservatives, meaning they don’t necessarily like the term “strong government”. In fact, strong government scares conservatives. So why use that language? A sure sign the writer is politically tone deaf. At any rate, what’s really important is that so far this letter has done nothing to really rouse any sort of emotion in the reader. And it’s emotion that spurs contributions. That’s why a good fundraising letter of this sort will start off boasting about all the group’s great successes in the previous year and how it made a difference. This is followed with something like: “But much more needs to be done in the upcoming year, the fight has just begun, we still face serious obstacles to attaining our goals, etc. etc.”

Canada is facing numerous challenges this year – including a global credit crisis, the danger of a new recession, a precipitously declining neighbour in the United States, and instability across Europe and much of the world. Our federal government has a great deal of work ahead in order to protect hard-working Canadians, our families, and our economic opportunities. It is time for action.

Again suddenly the letter shifts focus. It went from talking about needing more conservative policies to “Canada is facing numerous challenges”. And what does a “precipitously declining neighbour in the United States” actually mean? But here’s the real problem: the letter talks about our federal government having a great deal of work ahead of it. OK true enough but I thought this was a letter about the NCC? Why talk about what the government has to do? As a donor I want to know what the NCC will do. Then it says it’s a “time for action” but offers no hint as to what kind of action.

If you have already renewed your support for this year - thank you! On behalf of all Canadians, your donation is greatly appreciated. Please consider forwarding this email on to others whoe believe in the principles of responsible fiscal management in our government.

This is odd. Why is the letter writer speaking on “behalf of all Canadians”? Do all Canadians care about the NCC? Also “who” is spelled wrong. It’s unprofessional to send out a letter with these sorts of errors; it undermines the confidence of donors. If I can’t trust you to proof read a letter how can I trust you with my money? Anyway, the letter changes course yet again as it presents a list for no apparent reason.

Fiscal Accountability: This government has pledged to balance the federal budget by 2015-2016 – one year ahead of the Parliamentary Budget Office’s earliest estimates. We have been holding their feet to the fire to disclose how they plan to achieve this – and to implement their plan without delay. Balancing the budget is this government’s most important task, and there is no excuse for keeping their plan hidden from taxpayers. Taxpayers gave this government a majority to enable them to make the difficult decisions and reduce government spending dramatically. In fact, this is the platform they ran on – any stalling or backpedaling will cost them their credibility.

See how the letter loses an opportunity to stir up passion? When discussing fiscal policy the letter states if the Conservatives don’t cut spending it will hurt their “credibility”. In other words, we need fiscally responsible policies not because it’s good for the country or good for taxpayers or good for Canada’s future, but because it’s good for the Conservative Party. The NCC should be speaking about values at this point, not about crass political calculation. Better: “I don’t want my children to grow up in a country where they are burdened with high taxes and crushing debt ….”

Privatize the CBC: Earlier this year we launched a campaign to address public funding for the CBC – funding which amounts to more than $1.1-billion each and every year. We have launched a petition that allows signatories to add their names with thousands of other Canadians that would like to ‘opt out’ of funding the CBC. The entire CBC television arm should be privatized and sold off immediately – there is simply no longer any need for a national broadcaster. CBC television unfairly competes with the private sector for advertising dollars and has repeatedly refused to be transparent about its finances. Since taxpayers are paying their bills, this is unacceptable. While CBC radio still has a place in many communities, it is CBC television that receives the lion’s share of public funds without producing relevant content or maintaining accountability.

OK, when writing a letter to NCC supporters you can’t go wrong bashing the CBC. And finally we get a mention of a specific NCC action in 2011 – a petition. But no boasting about its success. How many people signed it? Did it make news? Did the left-wing attack the NCC for it? We just don’t know.

Protect the right to own private property: This year the NCC has also been pressing hard for much-needed change to the appalling state of property rights in Canada. It is unbelievable that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not protect property rights in Canada – in fact, we do not even have a unified legal definition of property! Without clear legal protection, provincial and federal governments alike routinely infringe on Canadians’ property rights under the auspices of legislation focusing on the environment, energy or any number of other seemingly unrelated issues.

This is happening right now to property owners in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. We have been tackling this issue head on at the provincial level to fight against each of these transgressions, but we must see action at the federal level to ensure basic property rights are enshrined in

Canada

’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Protecting property rights is a good issue. But again what exactly did the NCC do to protect these rights? Ad campaigns? Media appearances? It’s all a secret.

Reform Healthcare spending: Overall healthcare spending in 2012 is set to top $200-billion for the first time. If this government is serious about reducing spending, a national strategy is needed to find efficiencies and drive these costs down. It is long past time to remove unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and provide Canadians with the healthcare we deserve - at a price we can afford.

Every year, healthcare spending accounts for a larger percentage of each tax dollar collected in Canada – this is the result of our provincial and federal governments approving budget increases of 6% or more each year. Unfortunately, more and more of this money is being spent supporting Canada’s bloated bureaucracies instead of being used to improve actual services for Canadians. We must drastically reduce the size of our healthcare bureaucracy if we hope to improve the quality healthcare available to Canadians.

As of 2011, healthcare spending in Ontario has already surpassed 50% of total government spending. British Columbia and Alberta will reach the 50% mark by 2017, yet hospital wait times are increasing and services continue to decline. A recent study by the Fraser institute found that waiting times for surgery are at an all-time high across the country. It is not hard to determine where these budget increases are going – Canada has more than 10x as many healthcare bureaucrats when compared to similar countries around the world.

The National Citizens Coalition has been working hard to see healthcare budgets built from scratch each year, which would prevent wasteful spending. We simply cannot afford to increase healthcare spending by 6% year after year. Canada desperately needs the political will to reduce our healthcare bureaucracy before our standards of care plummet any further.

OK but what did the NCC do to fix health care? What will it do in 2012 to make a difference? Give me a bone here people. If I am going to part with my hard earned money I need some evidence that my money will be use for something besides paying NCC salaries. Also, and this goes for all the above points, a fundraising letter is not the place to explain why something is wrong. You should assume NCC supporters already support private property rights, a privatized CBC and fiscal responsibility. So why waste time and space trying to convince them? You risk boring the reader. Instead, get right into it. “The NCC plans to launch a nation-wide multi-media blitz to push our politicians to…..whatever.” Also a good idea to include a draft copy of an ad. People like to see the tangible ways their money will be spent.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has been working hard to show Canadians that his government intends to keep its election promises. We have seen important legislation introduced in several key areas, including the long-gun registry, union transparency legislation, and ending the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly on western grain. This action has helped give this government some much needed momentum, because we know the hard work did not end with the election.

This is blatant Harper cheerleading. As a “non-partisan” organization the NCC is supposed to treat all political parties equally. But aside from the organizational ethics praising Harper in this way is a bad fundraising tactic. Think about it. If I am reading this letter I would be tempted to give money directly to the Conservative Party and cut out the middleman. Plus making Harper too much of a hero now will make it more difficult to raise money if you need to criticize him down the road. Also for years and years the dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly was a big issue for the NCC. Why just credit Harper with its demise? Why not claim this is an example of a huge NCC success!!

Please visit our website at www.nationalcitizens.ca for more information on all of these issues and many more – you can renew your support for the NCC by clicking here with our easy to use donation system. You can even make additional donations directly to the campaigns of your choice!

As you can see, there is a great deal on the line this year and this is why I am asking for your generous support once more. There is no other organization like the National Citizens Coalition – together, our thousands of supporters all across the country help shape each of our campaigns from the ground up. This is why, with your help, we are able to have such an impact and protect the best interests of hard-working Canadians.

We must continue to stand strong together, and the most effective way to do this is to continue your support of the National Citizens Coalition.

Amazingly no real reason is given to make a donation except that “there is no other organization like the National Citizens Coalition.” This is pure laziness by the writer. I mean come on, if you want to convince people to part with their money you need to inspire them! Tell them they are helping to make the country a freer, better place! Remind them that they have an important role to play in pushing Canada in the right direction!

This year, the National Citizens Coalition was featured in more media appearances than ever before – in a remarkably wide variety of programs and publications. Our influence is constantly expanding and our voice is strong because the NCC has been championing the basic rights and freedoms of Canadians from our inception in 1967.

This is a dubious claim. If anything the NCC has virtually disappeared from the national radar. Certainly, the NCC achieved much more significant press coverage back in the 1990s. But OK for the sake of argument let’s assume the NCC did garner great media coverage in 2011. That doesn’t of itself mean anything. The NCC should be about getting results not mentions in the media. But if you do feel the need to crow about media attention at least cite examples of this great coverage. And how is the NCC’s influence expanding?

We need your support now more than ever before – 2012 is going to be a critical year for

Canada

and the world. Please continue your steadfast support, and together we can ensure that the coming year is one that delivers for taxpayers. I look forward to the challenges that await us, because so much is now within reach.

What does “delivers for taxpayers” mean? Better: "With your financial support, the NCC can continue to provide a strong voice for your values and for your freedoms!”

A donation of $35 dollars or more will qualify you for our quarterly Freedom Watch publication and exclusive website content. You will be kept up to date on all our campaigns and political commentary from all across the country. All donations of $135 or more will also qualify you for our most celebrated publication – the National Citizens Review. The National Citizens Review features journalistic content from some of

Canada

’s top political minds, and it is all available exclusively to our supporters.

A very weak ask. You should say something like “Please make your most generous contribution possible … $500, $200, $100, $35...your support will make a difference!” In fact, it’s kind of strange that no where in this letter does the writer actually come out and say “Please donate money.” Subtlety rarely works in fundraising.

Thank you very much for continuing to stand with us and especially for sharing your feedback and ideas. We will always listen to your concerns and together we will help Canada continue to prosper for generations to come.

Sincerely,

Peter Coleman
President and CEO
National Citizens Coalition

P.S. Join with thousands of other like-minded Canadians all across the country – renew your support of the NCC today! Your support will send a clear message to politicians across the country that the NCC will be as strong as ever in 2012. And believe me – your support makes a big difference. You are helping make Canada a better place for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. That is something to be proud of.

The PS is actually the best part of the letter. It’s concise and to the point. It would have been better had the NCC scrapped the previous 1,000 words and only sent out the PS!

Overall, this letter is not only a disaster, but it’s a disaster that never seems to end. It goes on forever. This would not be so bad if the letter was well written and structured. But it’s just a hodgepodge of ideas and issues thrown together willy nilly. But that’s not the real problem. The real problem is it lacks heart. It has zero emotion. In fact, it reads like it was written by an accountant. It’s all about government efficiency and savings and waste and what a wonderful job the Tory government is doing. The letter writer just doesn't understand the psychology of giving. Nor, apparently, does he understand how conservatives think. Indeed, what I find truly astounding is this letter does not even mention the words “freedom” or “liberty”. Remember the NCC is an ideological organization committed to defending and promoting freedoms; political freedom, economic freedom, individual freedom. How can you send out a multi-page letter and not talk about freedom? It’s mind-boggling. Imagine the Ford Motor Company sending out a newsletter that did not talk about cars. To be successful raising money the NCC needs to push ideological hot buttons: freedom, free enterprise, small government, strong families, etc. What I am trying to say is good political writing is like poetry. It’s an art that evokes a reaction, a reaction that hopefully opens up wallets. This letter is the opposite of art. It’s trash.

Also, if you can't or won't take shots at the Conservatives then at least villainize their enemies. This letter should have said something like, “Stephen Harper wants to set this country back on the right track. But standing in his way are the big union bosses, the left-wing media and the craven opposition politicians. They will resist Harper’s agenda every step of the way. That’s why we need a strong, well-funded NCC to stand up for our precious freedoms. Only the NCC can take on the forces of the left and win. Only the NCC can make sure Canadians hear the real story etc. etc.” It would also help if you could cite left wing union bosses or politicians attacking the NCC. When a community comes under attack it’s members instinctively rally to the defence. Use that to your advantage NCC!!

Then there are the stylistic problems: too many long sentences, too much passive language, lack of strong verbs, poor phrasing.

To sum up, this letter just doesn’t resonate with a reader. NCC supporters are hard-core, right wing conservatives. They care about certain ideals and values. And if you can’t connect to them on with emotional and values-oriented language you won’t connect with them at all. You certainly won’t get them reaching for their wallets with a vague, boring, badly penned, sterile pitch. Whoever wrote this letter didn’t feel the need to put any effort or thought into the message.

It’s too bad. Canada could use a strong well-funded voice for freedom.

At any rate, if anybody from the NCC reads this feel free to use my ideas --- for a fee!

Ideas for choosing a leader

2012-01-16T11:53:00.003-05:00

On at their recent convention, Liberal delegates voted to allow anyone who declares support for the Liberal party to vote in Liberal leadership elections, without actually become a party member.

Of course, there were many other proposals to change the manner of choosing a new Liberal leader, but they never made it to the convention floor.

Here are some of the more interesting suggestions:

1. Randomly choose a name pulled out of Pierre Trudeau’s Panama hat.

2. Pick anybody with the last name “Trudeau”

3. Ban from running for leadership anybody who has earned a degree from Harvard.

4. Anoint a leader after consulting Mackenzie King’s Ouija board

5. Pick the winner by means of a national best two out of three rock, paper scissors competition.

6. Use sample of Wilfrid Laurier’s DNA to create a clone.

7. Offer leadership to winner of Justin Beiber look-alike contest.

8. Produce some sort of Reality TV program where leadership candidates compete in competitions such as: “Throttle the Protester” and “Offer the Kick back”.

9. Let’s just forget all this stuff, because we all know Bob Rae will be the next leader.

Harper Restores Free Expression on Election Night

2012-01-13T14:15:00.000-05:00

Media reports say the Harper government is dropping the election night black out ban.

This is a great victory for freedom.

The black out ban, technically known as Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act, prohibited the "premature transmission" of election results.

In other words, under this law you couldn’t reveal how Canadians voted in a region where the polls are closed, to Canadians living in a region where the polls are still open.

And believe me, the bureaucrats at Elections Canada enforced Section 329 with a Spanish-Inquisition like zealotry.

Just ask Paul Bryan.

Back in 2000 Paul, a British Columbia software developer, decided he would defy the law because he believed it infringed on free speech.

So, acting on principle, he posted real-time election results from Atlantic Canada on his website. This was back in the Stone Age era of the Internet when there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no Craigs List. (How did we survive?)

Please note, Paul didn't project winners. He didn't provide analysis. He simply gave British Columbians a chance to see how voters in Newfoundland were casting their ballots.

Elections

Canada

took notice of this egregious crime and took immediate action to safeguard democracy.

The next day they dispatched police to Paul's home and officially charged him with a crime. The police also seized his computer hard drive and other equipment.

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper, who back then was still president of the National Citizens Coalition, was outraged with the bullying ways of Elections Canada.

So the NCC took up Paul's cause and challenged the law in the courts.

Unfortunately, in an incredibly short-sighted ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Paul and sided with Elections Canada, so the black out rule remains in effect.

Of course, it's a law which is now probably unenforceable. Modern communication technology has rendered it impossible to keep track of all possible violators.

As one of the lawyers arguing against Section 329 told the Supreme Court justices, "The only way to get fairness is to get rid of Section 329 or to shut the power off on election day so no one gets any results."

Prime Minister Harper has now pulled the plug on this ridiculous law. And for that he deserves the thanks of all Canadians who cherish free speech.

Winning in New Hampshire

2012-01-09T15:47:00.001-05:00

New Hampshire is in the news a lot these days because tomorrow the “Live Free or Die” state will hold the first primary in the

presidential sweepstakes.

And because it is the first primary, it can make or break a contender’s momentum.

In other words, New Hampshire may be small, but its influence on US politics is huge.

So what will it take for Republican presidential wannabes to win this key primary?

Well first off, the nominees better forget all that stuff about wining votes through new-fangled notions like social media.

To be successful in New Hampshire requires old-fashioned “retail” campaigning, namely lots of baby-kissing, hand-shaking and Town Hall-attending. Simply put, “Granite Staters”, as they call themselves, want to see candidates up close.

And make no mistake, Granite Staters know what to look for in an candidate. They are as knowledgeable about politics as Canadians are about hockey.

Just consider the New Hampshire state legislature boasts 424 members making it the fourth-largest English-speaking legislative body in the world, behind only India’s Parliament, the

United Kingdom

’s Parliament and the US Congress.

Not bad for a state with a population of only 1.3 million.

And get this: New Hampshire state legislators are paid a grand total of about $100 a year. That’s right, for Granite Staters running for office, getting elected and passing state legislation are all basically hobbies.

My point is they appreciate a well-run campaign and a well prepared candidate.

And their interest in politics is intense. I saw this first-hand in 2010 while working on a campaign in a mid-term Republican US Senate primary race.

For example, one time my candidate’s organizers scheduled a “Town Hall Meeting” on a beautiful mid-July Sunday. To me this seemed a mistake. Nobody, I thought, would come to a hotel basement on a weekend just to hear a candidate prattle on about a primary election that wouldn’t take place for another four months.

Boy was I wrong. The place ended up packed with Republicans. And they all knew their issues backwards, forwards and sideways.

And what do New Hampshire voters care about? Well one thing they care about is the right to own and bear arms. Anyone who ever wants to run for a Republican nomination in the state, had better own a gun and had better have fired it in the recent past.

Also Republican candidates should pander a bit to the state’s largest ethnic group, which by the way just happens to be French-Canadians. Check the New Hampshire phone book and you will find lots of Lamontange’s Boudettes and Ayottes.

Meanwhile, all candidates should beware of the Union Leader, the state’s largest newspaper, whose endorsement is extremely influential when it comes to Republican politics.

What’s interesting about the Union Leader, however, is not only does it endorse a candidate, it will often editorially savage the candidates it didn’t endorse.

This time the paper is backing Newt Gingrich, which certainly gives him an edge.

But that doesn’t mean Gingrich will necessarily come out on top.

In fact, polls show former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has a real good shot at winning in New Hampshire. This makes sense because Romeny is a New Englander.

If there is anything I learned about Granite Staters, it’s they can be wary of people from outside their region. So many of them may vote Romney simply because he is one of their own.

Oh and there’s one final fact candidates need to know about New Hampshire: It’s actually pronounced “New Hampshah”

Anatomy of a Bad Fundraising Letter

2012-01-03T09:23:00.006-05:00

Recently somebody passed along to me a year-end fundraising appeal from the federal New Democratic Party. I found it offensive, not for ideological reasons, but because it was a poorly written, poorly constructed letter. In fact, to my mind it utterly failed as direct mail fundraising material. Why do I say that? Well see below. I have reproduced the letter, with my commentary in bold font:

My Fellow New Democrat,

At the end of the year, all parties assess what they’ve accomplished in the last 12 months. For New Democrats, this year – there were many. But I would like to start by talking about what Canadians accomplished.

Quite simply, 2011 is the year Canadians changed Ottawa. Forever.

OK I am sorry but this is really a lame beginning for a fundraising letter: It’s boring. And that’s a killer, because the first paragraph of a direct mail pitch has to be like the lede of a news story; it has to grab your attention, make you want to read on or at least make some sort of emotional connection with the reader. But this opening just doesn’t cut it. It’s just vague and uninspiring. Who cares about what “Canadians accomplished”? Heck, they are not even talking about what the NDP accomplished. What would make for a better opening? Well just about anything really, but most obviously, they should have invoked Jack Layton and his legacy:

My Fellow New Democrat:

As you know our party and our nation suffered a great loss this year with the passing of Jack Layton.

I am sure, like me, you miss him greatly.

But working together we can keep his memory alive forever by building on the wonderful legacy he left for our party. That’s why I am writing you today.

Blah, blah, blah.

Invoking Layton in the first sentence this way would have packed an emotional wallop.

On May 2, four and a half million Canadians took a good look at Ottawa. And they didn’t like what they saw. The ongoing scandals… the divisive politics… and how little was being done to help Canadian families.

Canadians saw a place where Liberal and Conservative insiders got all the breaks. While Canadian families were left to fend for themselves.

They said Ottawa was broken.

And they put their trust in New Democrats to fix it. To bring change that would finally put families first.

The above paragraphs are nothing but political spin. There is a time and place for that kind of propaganda, of course, but that place is not a fundraising letter. First off, everybody knows the Conservatives actually won the election, so it’s a real stretch to suggest Canadians put their trust in the NDP to “fix” anything. That’s not say the NDP shouldn’t brag, they absolutely should, but a good fundraising pitch needs grounding in reality. In the case of the NDP they should have focused on the big political news story of the year: the NDP’s amazing breakthrough in Quebec. That was huge. And it was real. Why not make that a focal point of the letter?

New Democrats have already started delivering on that promise of change.

The New Democrat team and I need your help to keep moving Canada forward. Please make an urgent donation of $50, $100 – or whatever you can afford – right now.

As I’m sure you’ve seen, some of the change Ottawa desperately needed happened right after the 2011 election. Because of New Democrats, Canada now has:

✓ A record number of women in Parliament.

✓ A record number of young, dynamic leaders.

✓ The first Parliament with an average age of under 50.

✓ A new tone in Parliament – an accomplishment that unfortunately too many other parties have not felt necessary to copy.

✓ An Opposition that unites progressive Canadians from every region of the country – including, for the first time in a generation, a plurality of Quebecers.

✓ A party that is committed to putting the old divisions aside and working together to build a better

Canada

Is it just me or is this a weak list of accomplishments? Some are even dubious, ie “A new tone in Parliament”. (Paging Pat Martin) But there is a bigger problem here and this gets to the heart of why this is a bad fundraising letter. When it comes to seeking donations for a political cause, focusing on the positive accomplishments of your side is less important than illuminating the danger posed by the other side. In short, a good fundraising letter makes the reader afraid. Why? Simple. If donors are thinking rationally, they are less likely to hand over their hard earned dollars to a political party. Think about it. Would you rather give money to a political party that has a “record number of women in Parliament” or to a charity that’s fighting cancer or some other disease that might kill you? Fear works. My point is, the goal should be to get readers reacting emotionally.That’s why you want to take aim at the heart, not the brain. In this case the NDP should be ringing the alarm bells about the scary dangers posed by the extreme right-wing Harper government. The letter should make it clear only a strong, vigorous and of course well funded NDP can stop this Harper menace.

But perhaps the biggest change has only been seen more recently.

For the first time, as we move towards the next election, Canadians now have a clear choice in direction for our country.

A choice between the Conservative’s fend-for-yourself inaction on job creation, and the New Democrats’ focus on helping small businesses and targeted action to help the job creators.

That’s a clear choice.

On pensions.

The Conservatives want Canadians to roll the dice with even more of their retirement savings – on failing stock markets. New Democrats want to strengthen the public pensions Canadians can rely on in tough times.

That’s a clear choice.

On Health Care.

Conservatives are already backing out of their one commitment on healthcare. A promise to maintain the 6% escalator on funding. New Democrats think the healthcare of Canadian families should always be a priority – in good times and bad.

That’s a clear choice.

On lifting First Nations families out of poverty.

Conservatives have completely turned their backs on aboriginal families. Blaming the community, passing the buck, not taking any responsibility for years of underfunding. New Democrats have shown that we want to work with First Nations communities, build a new relationship based on respect and trust, and work towards ensuring no Canadian families gets left behind.

Admittedly the NDP letter does try to raise a bit of fear about the Tories in this next part of the letter. But it’s half-hearted. Consider this sentence: “Conservatives are already backing out of their one commitment on healthcare”. Yawn. That kind of tepid language won’t motivate anybody. Better: “Prime Minister Harper seems determined to wreck Canada’s beloved health care system with his dangerous big-business-friendly, right wing agenda.”

That’s a clear choice – and as you know, a commitment I personally hold very dear to my heart.

So today I’m asking you to make a very special donation to Canada’s New Democrats. With your help, we can continue fighting to make life better for Canadian families – every single day.

Canadians also have a clear choice on the caliber of the team they want fighting for them.

6 years into government, Stephen Harper’s team remains an embarrassment. Tony Clement. Bev Oda. Peter Mackay. John Duncan. Peter Kent.

I will put my front benches up against this crew any day. Our united team is matched only by the caliber of the candidates from across the country who are running to be our new Party leader.

Check out the above paragraphs. Do you know what’s truly amazing about them? When recounting the litany of Tory villains they don’t single out who should be the biggest villain of all, namely, Stephen Harper! In fact, incredibly the letter only mentions Harper once in passing! This is crazy. It’s like Star Wars without Darth Vader or Batman without the Joker. I mean, let’s face it, for NDP donors the Prime Minister must be number one on their list of political bad guys. So why waste time on relative non-entities like Oda, Duncan and Kent? Why not use antipathy toward Harper to squeeze dollars out of wallets. Yes I know that sounds awful. But here’s the reality: if you want to raise dollars in politics you must invoke raw and powerful emotions. And the two most raw emotions are hate and fear. That’s why Harper should have been the star of the letter. The theme would be simple: “Here are ten reasons why Harper is the devil. Only the NDP can stop him. Send cash!”

On issue after issue, Canadians now have a clear choice between an out-of-touch Conservative government that will always put well-connected friends and insiders at the front of the line. And a New Democrat team that will ensure families come first, and nobody is left behind.

That was the core of Jack Layton’s values. The core of his dream for a better

Canada

. A

Canada

built on hope, optimism, perseverance and the rock solid belief that by working together, there is no challenge we cannot overcome.

Finally they mention Layton!! Too little, too late.

The outpouring we saw upon Jack Layton’s passing showed us something we all knew. These values are Canadian values. His dream for a better Canada is a Canadian dream.

New Democrats will never let that dream die. As we enter a New Year, that light remains as strong as ever.

And so there remains much work to be done.

We can build a better Canada – but I need your help to make it happen. Please make a generous contribution to Canada’s New Democrats today.

Together, we will defeat the Conservatives in 2015.

And what’s with talking about defeating the Conservatives in 2015? In a fundraising letter you need to build up a sense of urgency. “I am writing you this letter because we need your support RIGHT NOW for some important-sounding reason.”

And we will carry on Jack Layton’s legacy by forming a New Democrat government that will always put Canadian families – first.

Oh, this letter lacks one other essential money-raising ingredient: guilt. A good closing would have been something like: “Jack Layton always counted on your support in the past, so I know you will want to help ensure his legacy for the future. Please don’t let Jack down.”

Nycole Turmel

Leader

Canada’s New Democrats

Now maybe this letter will raise money. That’s fine. But my point is a better letter would have raised a heck of a lot more.

The 2011 Gerry Awards

2011-12-27T11:11:00.003-05:00

OK it's time to stop your speculating and guessing.

Here's this year's official 2011 Gerry Award winners!!

Most Dead Terrorist Award –

Winner: Osama Bin Laden - US Navy SEALs will drop the award over undisclosed location in the Indian Ocean.

The Medal for Parliamentary Decorum

Winner: Tie - Liberal MP Justin Trudeau and NDP MP Pat Martin. In response to winning this award the two MPs released the following statement: “Go f*%k yourself, you godd#%n piece of sh&t.”

The Lifetime Achievement in Gazebo Promotion Award

Winner: Cabinet Minister Tony Clement for his determination to keep Gazebos in news headlines no matter the expense to Canadian taxpayers.

The Eggheads Don’t belong in Politics Prize (AKA The Stephane Dion award)

Winner: Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff who in the 2011 federal election clearly showed why intellectuals have as much business engaging in politics as Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has of joining the Margaret Atwood Appreciation Society.

Best Deceased Dictator
Winner: North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il

Note – Mummar Gaddafi actually received more support for this honour, but judges couldn’t agree on how his name should be spelled.

The General Custer Strategy Prize

Winner: The political geniuses in the Opposition who thought toppling the minority federal Conservative government and running an election on the “ethics” issue was a winning game plan.

The Most Likely to get a Government Bail out Award

Winner: Research in Motion – We tried to email this good news to the company but unfortunately our Blackberry froze.

The Economic Action Plan Award

Winner: Vancouver hockey rioters. Thanks to the damage they did to property after the Stanley Cup finals, massive amounts of spending was undertaken which must have “stimulated” economic activity. Based on this success, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty now hopes fans across the country will offset a possible recession by going on a similar destructive rampage after the Super Bowl.

The Dirty Harry Award

Winner: The Conservative federal government. This government’s single-minded determination to get those lowlifes off our streets with more cops, more laws and more jails has led to a new Canadian national motto: “Well what about it punk, feeling lucky?”

Keeping Canada Safe Award

Winner: Defence Minister Peter Mackay who has managed to protect our country with a creative combination of free helicopter rides and unlimited expense accounts.

The Boston Red Sox Award for blowing a big lead in September

Winner: Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives

The Lenin Turning Over in His Grave Memorial Prize

Winner: “The Occupy Movement” which sought to overthrow capitalism (or something) by camping out in public parks and chanting a lot.

The "We're Glad She Wasn't Included in the Leaders' Debate Award"

Winner: Green Party leader Elizabeth May, who is also the best Canadian MP ever to represent Papua, New Guinea.

The Teenager Achievement in Politics Award

Winner: The entire NDP Quebec caucus.

The Houdini Disappearing Award

Winner: The National Citizens Coalition – Thanks to incredible incompetence at the top, this once great organization is now basically irrelevant. (Oh it still has one key function: mindlessly regurgitating Conservative Party talking points.)

Fighting the good fight

2011-12-20T09:20:00.002-05:00

One of the dangers of involving yourself in the rough and tumble world of politics is you risk succumbing to cynicism. If that happens you either give up your ideals or you simply give up all together. Sadly, it happens all the time.

However, one person I know has managed to emerge from the political trenches with both his ideals and his fighting spirit intact. His name is Kevin Gaudet.

I first came to know Kevin when he headed the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a group dedicated to making governments at all levels more accountable. And Kevin did his job with the tenacity of a pit bull. But more than that he displayed a rare combination in politics: he not only embraced political principles but also understood the nuts and bolts of political gamesmanship.

This is why, although working with a limited budget, Kevin constantly made headlines. He knew how to craft his message so that it resonated with both the media and the public. As a consequence the CTF became the bane of wasteful government bureaucrats and politicians and Kevin emerged as a champion for all taxpayers.

But he wanted to do more. Rather than just lobbing bombs from the political sidelines, Kevin decided he needed to tackle the problems of big government from within. So in a gutsy move he quit his job at the CTF and ran for the Ontario legislature as a Progressive Conservative. True to his nature, Kevin ran a spirited campaign in the recent provincial election, but ultimately came up short.

Now a lot of people might have thrown in the towel after such an experience. But not Kevin. He is already back in action, this time running for the presidency of the PC party, a campaign that sees him taking on two other excellent candidates. Not surprisingly, Kevin is running as a proud “fiscal conservative.”

Will Kevin win this race? Who knows? But in my books just by taking on this challenge he is already a winner.

In short, Kevin is the kind of guy who when he sees wrong, will do everything he can to make it right.

We need more people like that in politics.

Santa vs Suzuki

2011-12-19T17:14:00.001-05:00

Canada

’s famed environmentalist David Suzuki had better watch out, he better not pout and he better not cry and I am telling you why.

Santa Claus is coming to town and he is not a happy camper.

That’s right, reliable sources say the Jolly Old Elf is not at all jolly about Suzuki’s latest fear- mongering fundraising ploy

You may have heard about it. Suzuki’s Foundation has set up a website which claims Santa Claus needs to be relocated on account of all the North Pole ice has melted thanks to industrial-induced climate change.

And, of course, the only way to save Santa Claus is to send the Suzuki Foundation lots and lots of cash.

It’s not clear how Suzuki came up with this tawdry idea. Perhaps he imbibed too much eggnog, or maybe he suffered a concussion while engaged in Christmas combat shopping, or maybe his heart is just three sizes too small.

But in the end it doesn’t really matter. All that matters is that Suzuki’s propaganda stunt has apparently enraged the world’s most beloved Christmas icon.

And why shouldn’t Santa Claus be angry? First off, Suzuki is cutting Santa and his elves out of the action. They won’t get a single dime out of whatever money the “Let’s save Santa” campaign raises. The same thing happened, by the way, when Santa didn’t receive any royalties from the classic book, T’was the Night Before Christmas.

Secondly, it probably never occurred to Suzuki that Santa might actually welcome a little global warming in the North Pole. I mean let’s face it, Santa’s frigid village makes Winnipeg look like a tropical paradise.

Thirdly, Santa is probably no lover of the green movement. I am sure, for instance, those “clean energy” giant wind turbines, which green power advocates love so much, have cut to pieces more than one unwary reindeer flying too low on Christmas Eve.

And lastly, I bet Santa Claus is actually a strong supporter of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He does, after all, fit the Tory voter demographic to a tee: white, older male who lives in a non-urban environment. In fact, my theory is he moved to the North Pole either to escape high taxes or because he didn’t want to register his firearms.

This is why I fully suspect Santa Claus will hit back at Suzuki and his Foundation by doing everything he can to help the Conservative government achieve its agenda.

For instance, rather than riding on military helicopters, Defence Minister Peter MacKay will now get free lifts whenever he needs it on Santa’s sleigh with Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer leading the way.

And the next time tree-hugging American celebrities amass in Washington DC to protest the Keystone XL pipeline, watch for Santa Claus to air drop a battalion of hungry man-eating polar bears into their ranks.

Then just to stick it to the green crowd even more, I can envision Santa’s elves starting up a new business: selling melted glacier water in non-renewable plastic bottles. They will call it “Ethical Water.”

Plus Santa Claus will also likely offer the Tories invaluable political intelligence. His “Naughty or Nice” list (which contains much more data than the old mandatory long form census) could provide a lot of useful ammunition for the next round of Conservative Party attack ads, if you get my drift.

But what about Suzuki himself? Will he suffer any repercussions personally because of his ill-advised fundraising campaign?

Well, let’s put it this way. On Christmas morning Suzuki will almost certainly find his stocking stuffed with Alberta tar sands.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

(This article originally appeared in the Ottawa Hill Times)

Harper is a big meanie who is making his critics cry

2011-12-16T08:54:00.002-05:00

Ever since Prime Minister Stephen Harper won his majority government his management style has come under severe criticism.

Actually, it isn’t so much criticism as it is whining.

Indeed, many of the complaints against Harper can be summarized as follows: “Stephen Harper is a big mean bully who isn’t playing nice. Boo hoo!”

The whiners include media pundits, academics and Opposition MPs who take umbrage with the way the Harper government is limiting Parliamentary debate and with the way it treats its political opponents.

Take for example, Toronto Star columnist Tim Harper who recently moaned about how the Harper Tories, “Demonize opponents and mock their adversaries. Their partisan elbows as sharp as ever.”

And political scientist and former Globe and Mail editor, Geoffrey Stevens argued the Harper government needs to “relax” and “back off”, instead of trampling on opposition MPs.

Then there was NDP MP Pat Martin who famously and unapologetically used the “F” word on Twitter to express his displeasure with the Harper government’s tough Parliamentary tactics.

This made Martin an instant folk hero among the whining brigades.

Of course, Harper, Martin, Stevens and other Tory critics would never consider themselves as whiners. They prefer to paint themselves as defenders of democracy and of Parliamentary institutions and of civility.

Yet, you get the feeling that what really bothers them is that Prime Minister Harper is “running up the score.” In other words, Harper continues to effectively and efficiently push his agenda through Parliament while steamrolling over his hapless opponents.

For Harper critics and for those sympathetic with the Opposition parties, this state of affairs just isn’t fair. It’s almost as if they think the Tories should voluntarily ease up just to give the Liberals and NDP a chance to get back in the game.

And who knows maybe that would happen if the Conservatives had a different leader.

But like it or not, the man in charge these days is Harper, a politician who likes to wage total political war. And right now he faces an Opposition that is leaderless, weak and generally ineffective.

So why shouldn’t Harper take advantage of this weakness? Why shouldn’t he use the rules of Parliament to advance his agenda? Why shouldn’t he promote his own political interests?

Plus it’s important to keep in mind that for Prime Minister Harper winning a majority government wasn’t by any means his end game.

In my view, his overall strategic goal is to eliminate the Liberal party as an effective political force in

Canada

. And now that he has the Liberals on life-support, Harper is not about to let up and show them any mercy. Nor is he about to give up on degrading as much as possible the NDP. And why should he?

In fact, it’s unrealistic and naïve to expect that Harper would give up on tactics that so far have paid him rich political dividends.

Now admittedly Harper’s no nonsense approach doesn’t exactly make him a cuddly leader, but it doesn’t make him a wannabe dictator either.

And that’s something the whiners should keep in mind. They should also remember that most Canadians are OK with Harper’s approach to leadership. He did, after all, recently win a majority government victory.

That’s not to say the Conservatives should not be vigorously criticized. But instead of bellyaching about Harper’s Parliamentary procedures or about his supposed “bullying” tactics, his critics should focus instead on issues that actually might resonate with Canadians.

And here’s one more word of advice for Opposition MPs. If you don’t like Harper’s Parliamentary practices, the solution is quite simple: win the next election.

(This article originally appeared in the Hill Times.)

Chretien's first draft

2011-12-13T18:27:00.001-05:00

You have probably heard the news about former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien sending out a fundraising letter. But you probably didn't know that the letter talked about in the media is actually a second draft.

Fortunately, I managed to uncover the first draft.

Here it is:

Dear federal Liberal:

Remember me, I used to be your leader. Those were the days when we Liberals actually …you know won elections.

In fact, I won three majorities in a row. Not bad, eh? Not even the great God, Pierre Trudeau ever did that!

But then that Martin guy, the guy who thought he was smarter than everybody else, he took over the party and led it straight into the toilet.

Not that I am bitter or anything.

And then there were those two losers that came after Martin, what were their names again? Stephane … something and …I forget the other guy.

Anyway, I am writing because the Liberal Party is basically broke. It’s getting so bad Bob Rae might have to start busking for change on some Ottawa street corner.

So they came to me to help with the fundraising. Yeah, that’s right, the same guys who stabbed me in back now want my help.

Ironic, aint it?

Oh well, here goes: Please hand over some cash. Why? Well because, the Liberals are …. Um, we plan to … no that won’t work.... our policies are ....hmmm, that's unbelievable.

Man, this fundraising is hard.

In the old days getting money was really easy. I just sent some flacks to meet my corporate “friends” in a secluded Montreal restaurant, where a mutually beneficial arrangement was agreed upon, if you get my drift.

Nowadays, it’s different. Now we have to ask regular people like you to fork over the dough, without even being able to offer any advertising contracts.

It’s crazy.

So what are you waiting for? Get some cash, stuff it into an envelope and mail it to Liberal Party Headquarters … and do it now!!!

If you don’t send any money, I will go to your house and throttle you! Ha, ha, just kidding. (No I’m not.)

Yours truly,

Jean

Seriously, you have to admit I am the best Prime Minister Canada ever had, and that includes that dandy Pierre Trudeau! Not that I’m bitter.

MacKay’s Air Force Needs to be Grounded

2011-12-03T15:41:00.004-05:00

Remember the old TV comedy McHale’s Navy?

Well now we have a Conservative government production called MacKay’s Air Force, and it isn’t very funny.

In fact, if the Harper Government knows what’s good for it, it will cancel this program sooner rather than later.

In case you don’t know what I’m talking about,

Canada

’s Minister of Defence, Peter MacKay, is quickly gaining a reputation for flying high on the hog.

It all started when news emerged that MacKay had used a Cormorant search-and-rescue helicopter to pick him up from a lodge where he was spending a private vacation.

This was followed by other reports which indicated the Defence Minister had racked up nearly $3 million worth of flights on government Challenger jets.

Needless to say these stories were a gift to Opposition MPs who were quick to suggest MacKay was using government air craft as his own “personal limousine.”

That’s not only a good zinger, but it’s also a line of attack that could leave a serious mark on the Tory government.

Indeed, Mackay’s travel choices can hurt the Conservative Party in the eyes of voters much more than the so-called “ethical” scandals that helped bring down the government earlier this year.

Why do I say that?

Well first off many of the “ethical” issues the Opposition tried to stick on the Tories during the election just didn’t make great political weapons.

Take, for instance, the infamous “in out” scandal.

This was supposed to hurt the Conservatives because Elections Canada had charged the party with some sort of convoluted accounting shenanigans.

The story went something like this: Elections Canada charged the Conservatives with allegedly shifting $1.3 million in ad expense from its national campaign for the 2006 election to 67 individual candidates, who paid for national produced ads through bank transfers ….oops sorry dozed off there for a second.

Anyway, you see what I mean; you need to be a CMA to follow or even care about all the money trails laid out in the “in out” saga.

My point is an issue so complicated and so dull will never translate into an effective 30 second attack ad.

That’s why this “ethical” question was such a flop in the last federal election.

Voters just didn’t care.

On the other hand, people do care about political misbehavior when it’s easy to comprehend.

A voter who might not raise an eyebrow about his government amassing a $30 billion deficit, will be outraged if he learns $5,000 of his tax money was used to subsidize a study on erotic Norwegian literature.

And this brings us back to Mackay’s Air Force follies.

Opposition attacks on the Defence Minister’s use of government equipment will resonate with voters because, unlike the ethical stuff, everyone will understand the narrative.

It’s simple: We have an arrogant, out of touch, politician frittering away hard-earned tax dollars for his own personal comfort.

Plus the Conservatives are especially vulnerable to this sort of attack because they keep talking about the need for government austerity.

In short, MacKay can be cast not only as wasteful and arrogant, but also as a hypocrite.

The attack TV ads practically write themselves!

Cue Announcer: “You may have lost your job, you may be struggling to pay your bills, but Peter MacKay isn’t suffering. He likes to gallivant from posh vacation resorts on military helicopters. It’s time for the
Conservatives to come down to earth.”

This is why the Tories should ground MacKay and make sure other cabinet ministers don’t make similar mistakes.

Otherwise, the Conservative government might find itself in some not so friendly skies.

(This article originally appeared in the Ottawa Hill Times.)

Mulcair making political lemonade

2011-11-18T12:20:00.000-05:00

It looks like NDP leadership hopeful Thomas Mulcair is heeding the old adage, “If life gives you a lemon, make lemonade.”

Or rather since this is the NDP we are talking about, maybe it’s an orange and orange juice.

Whatever.

My point is Mulcair is making the best he can out of a bad strategic situation.

And that bad strategic situation can be simply stated: his chief opponent in the NDP leadership race, Brian Topp, has cornered the market when it comes to big name endorsements.

Topp has received endorsements from such stars as former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, former Saskatchewan Premier Ed Ronanow and most recently from the United Steelworkers union.

Getting that kind of establishment party support is impressive. In fact, one pollster has described Topp as an “elite juggernaut.” And no mistake, such endorsements do matter. It means credibility for the candidate, it means money, it means lots of positive media coverage.

Mulcair, a relative newcomer to the NDP (he was formerly a provincial Liberal in Quebec) can’t match Topp in the endorsement game.

So he isn’t trying. Rather Mulcair has decided to play a little political ju-jitsu; he is using Topp’s strength against him.

How?

Well, essentially Mulcair has cast himself as the anti-establishment candidate. At his leadership launch, for instance, he talked about how he would do “things differently” and how the party needed to expand beyond its “traditional base.”

One of his supporters, Dominic Cardy, the leader of New Brunswick’s provincial NDP, was even blunter. “The election,” he said, “is about the future of our country, not the past of our party.”

In other words, Topp is getting support from the party’s establishment, because he represents old ideas and the “Old Guard.”

Mulcair, on the other hand, represents the grassroots and new ways of doing things.

It’s an anti-elistist argument that might resonate in an anti-elistist party like the NDP.

Of course, there is nothing original about this tactic. Running against the establishment is a time-honoured practice that often pays political dividends.

This is true especially of late.

I saw this first-hand last year while working on a Republican primary race in the

. Anti-incumbent feeling was running strong at the time in

America

, meaning the worst insult you could hurl at an opponent was that he or she was an “Establishment-backed candidate” or that his or her campaign was funded by special interest groups or lobbyists.

Indeed, it was anger at the Republican Party’s establishment which helped fueled the Tea Party movement and which led to the defeat of several GOP “establishment” favorites in the 2010 primaries.

Nor were the Democrats immune. Some Congressional Democratic incumbents sought to win points with voters by pointing out how they had opposed their own party’s establishment.

The same dynamic was at play here in

Canada

too.

One of the reasons, for instance, Toronto mayoralty candidate Rob Ford won his race so handily was because he overtly took on the city’s ruling establishment.

And Prime Minister Stephen Harper has used anti-establishment feeling to his advantage as well. He and his Conservatives have often railed against cultural, intellectual and media “elites” to rally their populist supporters.

Mind you, none of this means going the anti-establishment route will work for Mulcair in the NDP leadership race.

He is still a David taking on a Goliath, and often in politics Davids get squashed.

However, in terms of strategy Mulcair doesn’t have much choice in the matter. Playing the anti-establishment card is not only his best option; it’s really his only option.

I just hope he likes the taste of lemonade.

(This article originally appeared in the Ottawa Hill Times.)

Votes and Values

2011-11-11T09:21:00.000-05:00

Canada

these days seems to be an ideological mish-mash.

On the one hand, you could argue

Canada

is becoming a “right-wing” country and point to the recent decisive majority government victory of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives.

On the other hand, however, you could also plausibly argue that Canadians actually embrace left-wing social democracy and for proof note the even more recent NDP majority victory in Manitoba and the electoral win (albeit with a minority) of Ontario’s Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty.

So which is it? Are Canadians right wing or left wing?

Well, with all due respect to all you ideologues out there, the correct answer is neither.

The fact is the majority of Canadians don’t subscribe to any ideologically consistent set of principles. This is why, politically speaking, voters can seem to be all over the ideological map.

This is not to say Canadians don’t care about issues or that they don’t have well-thought out opinions.

They absolutely do. But they base their opinions and voting preferences not on ideology but on values.

For instance, voters who care about “pocket book” values tend to pay attention to issues like tax rates, deficits and government spending.

Meanwhile, Canadians who identify themselves with “moral values” care about things like abortion policy, same-sex marriage and other issues commonly associated with “The Family.”

And there are all kinds of other “value clusters” that make up the Canadian political landscape.

Politicians understand this state of affairs. This is why they will tailor their message so as to win over different value groups to their side.

For instance, when a politician promises to cut taxes and balance the budget, he is making a play for the “pocket book” crowd.

The political math in this case is easy: Whoever can assemble the biggest coalition of value groups, usually wins the election.

Now political strategists also have to keep in mind that the largest and most important value group in

Canada

is what I call the “Quality of Life Crowd.”

In a nutshell, those who make up the Quality of Life Crowd basically care about protecting and nurturing their standard of living. That means they want to keep their disposable income; that means they want access to excellent health care; that means they want good schools for their kids and a clean environment.

To win an election, you need a huge chunk of this group.

And the Quality of Life crowd is open to either right wing or left wing proposals depending on which side better frames the issues in its communications strategy.

For instance, Prime Minister Harper succeeded in winning over a lot of Quality of Lifers because he promised economic stability and competent leadership in the possibly tough days ahead.

Quality of Lifers, who are risk averse and who don’t like uncertainty, found Harper’s message reassuring.

What’s more, they also like to be kept safe, so Harper’s emphasis on law and order, likely resonated as well.

Now let’s consider the recent Ontario election.

In that contest the Ontario Liberals (with an able assist from their union allies) succeeded in defining Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leader Tim Hudak as a hospital-closing, immigrant-hating, right wing extremist.

The Liberals then focused their messaging on how they stood for a strong health care system, for better schools and for a greener environment.

For Quality of Lifers, who had become a little wary of Hudak and the Tories, McGuinty seemed a safer choice.

This is why Ontario leaned Conservative in May and Liberal in October.

It had nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with values

(The article originally appeared in the Ottawa Hill Times)

The sad case of the National Citizens Coalition

2011-10-11T17:06:00.000-04:00

I think it was former Maple Leaf enforcer Tie Domi who once said of hockey fights, “It’s not how many you win, it’s how many you show up for.”

And to its great shame and disgrace, the National Citizens Coalition did not show up for the Ontario election fight.

It’s true.

The NCC, once a scrappy champion for freedom, tamely stood on the sidelines during this election and watched as big union bosses poured millions of dollars into a media campaign that not only attacked and degraded the PCs but which also put forward a left wing agenda.

The left won the persuasion war essentially by default because the NCC surrendered the field.

It’s unbelievable.

(Full disclosure: I worked at the NCC for more than 20 years, until 2007 when I was fired after criticizing Prime Minister Stephen Harper for not sticking to his conservative principles.)

It makes me angry.

The NCC was created, after all, specifcally to speak up for freedom and to do battle in the arena of ideas. In the old days the NCC was ready, willing and eager to take on all comers, whether that meant battling government bureaucrats or union bosses or political parties.

We were a David taking on an army of Goliaths.

Today, by contrast, the NCC is a pussycat.

Now to be fair, the NCC did squeeze their donors for cash to pay for a “Dump Dalton” campaign. But it never amounted to anything but a pathetic joke. They had a low-budget website and a video ad that is embarrassingly bad, so bad I doubt it ever aired.

The upshot is the NCC didn’t make a peep. It was totally off the radar throughout a crucial election.

Now I don’t expect the NCC to match the unions dollar for dollar when it comes to media ad campaigns, but they should at least have the resources to make some sort of impact.

Back in the 1995 Ontario election, for example, the NCC was a force to be reckoned with. We ran hard-hitting and effective TV ads, we aired radio spots, put up billboards and published newspaper ads. We made news. We made a difference. And in a tight race, every little bit matters.

So why didn’t the NCC take on Premier McGuinty in any meaningful manner? Why didn’t it try to offset the union boss propaganda campaign? And never mind the paid media stuff. Why didn’t the NCC so much as publish an op ed in a major newspaper to express an opinion? To be blunt, why did they let their supporters and conservatives down?

And by the way, the NCC has not undertaken any serious initiatives in the past four years. It has not taken on any court challenges. It has not mounted any sort of major media campaign. It has done nothing, nada, rien.

Oh that’s not quite true, it still collects in lots of donations to pay for salaries.

So what’s the problem?

Well to my mind there are two basic issues. First, the NCC has basically transformed itself into a cheer leading squad for the federal Conservatives. Rather than promoting a conservative agenda, they simply regurgitate Prime Minster Stephen Harper’s talking points. That’s their new role.

Secondly and more seriously, I believe the people leading the NCC simply don’t know what they are doing. They don’t know how to run a media campaign; they don’t know how to create an imaginative ad; they lack the ability to communicate to the public in a persuasive manner. I also suspect they don’t even truly understand conservative ideology. Simply put, they don’t fight because they don’t know how to fight.

So the end result is the left can run rampant, unopposed as they did in the Ontario election. The NCC, in other words exists simply for the sake of existing. It really serves no useful function.

It’s sad.

Of course, this happens to all groups after a while. They lose their way, they lose their original sense of purpose, they outlive the spirit that created them. And so it is with the NCC. It isn’t dead, but it isn’t exactly alive either. It’s a zombie shuffling along aimlessly with neither a brain or a soul.

Canada’s conservative movement deserves better.

We need in short, a strong voice for conservatism that will show up for the fights, no matter the odds, no matter the opponent.

(Crossposted at Freedom Forum)

Ontario election prediction and analysis

2011-10-05T09:32:00.004-04:00

Here is my much anticipated official prediction for the 2011 Ontario provincial election:

The final seat tally will be - Liberals: 55 PCs: 33 NDP: 19 (I hope that adds up.)

Yup, the result will be a slim Liberal majority.

Why this result?

Let me explain by briefly analyzing the political campaigns in this race; because as they say, “campaigns matter.”

Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals

Going into this race Premier Dalton McGuinty’s biggest problem was that … well he is Dalton McGuinty.

Voters were tired of the guy; tired of his big spending ways, tired of his taxes, tired of his scandals.

And when voters get in that sort of surly mindset it’s darn tough to get them “untired.”

So the Liberals played the only card they could: they went on the attack.

In the weeks leading up to Election Day the Liberals (along with their big union boss allies) did everything they could to degrade the PC leader’s image.

And after softening up the Tories they shifted gears and concentrated on putting forward those issues where they had a home field advantage: health care, education, the environment.

Overall the Liberal campaign was professional, competent and well financed.

But it was not perfect. For one thing, the Liberal TV attacks against the NDP (comparing the NDP and the Tories) were weak and unconvincing. And the Liberals seemed to be in panic mode when it came to the Mississauga Power Plant issue.

And finally, McGuinty himself was not exactly Mr. Charisma. Of the three leaders his televised debate performance was the weakest. Basically all he did was spend 90 minutes reminding people why they were tired of him.

Yet in the end all that stuff won’t matter because the real ace up the Liberal Party’s sleeve was the 2011 federal election.

And by that I don’t mean Prime Minister Harper’s crack about the “trifecta” helped the Liberals and I don’t mean Ontario voters wanted to balance off a Blue Ottawa with a Red Toronto.

Nope, it’s far more basic. The federal Tory victory was good for the Ontario Liberals because it allowed angry voters to let off some pent up steam. When Ontarians voted against the Ignatieff Liberals many of them were also voting against the McGuinty Liberals. (Voters often don’t distinguish between federal parties and their provincial cousins)

And so in a sense McGuinty was seen as already punished for his sins.

This sapped some of the anti-Liberal feeling the Conservatives were hoping would carry them to an easy victory.

Kind of ironic, isn’t it?

Anyway, what it all adds up to is Ontarians will put aside their desire for change and stick with safer choice of the status quo.

Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives

This is a race Tim Hudak and the PCs should have won easily. The Tories, after all, were facing a tired, uninspiring government led by a Premier who was clearly past his best due date.

Poll after poll indicated Ontarians wanted change.

Plus throw in the fact that the McGuinty government had recently imposed the hated HST and it’s all a recipe for a Tory victory.

Indeed, as recently as July some polls gave the Tories a whopping 10 point lead over the Liberals.

But today, if the polls are to be believed, the PCs have squandered their once massive lead.

What happened?

Well first off leadership matters.

And for the PCs their leader Tim Hudak left much to be desired.

Now don’t get me wrong.

It’s not that Hudak is necessarily a bad leader. In fact, he’s actually quite competent.

But he’s like an NFL team’s second-string quarterback: he knows the plays, he can execute a game plan adequately … but he’s just not the guy you want on the field when you’re down by three points with two minutes to play.

Simply put, Hudak lacks the intangible quality that makes for a great leader, the ability to rouse voters or to inspire with a vision.

This shortcoming was evident during the televised leaders’ debate. Certainly Hudak did a good job in that debate; he memorized his lines well and delivered them like a pro. But he didn’t show any passion; he didn’t connect to viewers on an emotional level.

And it seems Hudak failed to even inspire his own conservative base. (By the way, the last leader who really did inspire the PC base was Mike Harris.)

By now you are probably saying: "Sure that sounds reasonable Gerry, but what about Prime Minister Stephen Harper? He won a majority and he isn’t inspiring".

True, but the federal Tories succeeded because they had a good communications campaign and a leader who if not likable was a known quantity.

The same can't be said for their provincial cousins. In fact, the Ontario PC campaign strategy lacked imagination.

Their plan from day one was pretty simple: Go around the province and tell everybody who would listen that Hudak was not McGuinty.

Everything was change, change, change. Even their platform had a bland generic-sounding name: Changebook.

And that’s fine.

But when the Liberals inevitably counter-attacked the Tories didn’t respond or re-adapt their tactics. They still stuck to basically the same theme, even though Hudak was taking some nasty political hits.

Just promising change, in other words, was not enough.

What should the PCs have done?

Well, most importantly they needed to create a political persona for Hudak, a man who, let’s face it, was unknown to most Ontarian voters.

He needed a narrative. Who was he? What did he stand for? What was his role in the political play? What was his vision?

The PCs didn't really tell us any of that stuff and it cost them because it gave their opponents a chance to define their leader.

And that’s what the Liberals and union bosses did. After their hatchet men were done Hudak was cast in the minds of many voters as a scary, right-wing extremist.

In politics you either define or you are defined.

Still even that could be overcome had the Tories launched a massive air war in the last few weeks of the campaign.

They needed to hit McGuinty and hit him hard.

But they didn’t. They just kept repeating a few tame “taxman” ads that had grown stale and lost their bite.

I suspect this wasn’t so much a strategic shortcoming as it was a financial one.

Anyway, the bottom line is when it comes to blowing big leads the Boston Red Sox and Atlanta Braves will soon have company.

Andrea Howath and the NDP

The Ontario NDP took a page out of the federal NDP playbook. They stayed under the radar for the first part of the campaign.

And they waited for the debate to showcase their leader on a TV stage, hoping the contrast would translate into votes.

And it will likely pay dividends.

First off, for many voters looking for change, Howarth fits the bill. Indeed, just by being a woman she represents change.

Plus she did a good job at the leaders’ debate, holding her own against Hudak and McGuinty.

This is the first look many voters had of the NDP leader and first impressions are lasting ones.

Most importantly however, the NDP could position itself as the only party with a positive vision, which will likely sway many voters fed up with the mud slinging taking place between the Liberals and PCs.

Finally, any lingering sympathy for the late Jack Layton will also help the NDP.

There won’t be an orange wave tomorrow, but maybe a strong ripple.

***********

So that’s my analysis. But keep in mind, if I’m wrong and the PCs win tomorrow night, then I will strongly insist this was really just an exercise in political satire.

Liberal NDP Merger Doesn’t Add Up

2011-09-29T11:30:00.001-04:00

Certain people in this country have a poor understanding of political mathematics.

I am talking about all those “progressives” out there who keep trumpeting the idea of a merger between the Liberals and NDP.

These people seem to think a new “Liberal - New Democratic Party” would both unite the Canadian left and topple the Harper regime in the next federal election.

As left-wing columnist Frances Russell put it, “The Liberals and New Democrats together could create a game-changing foe for the Conservatives.”

Now on the surface such an argument does make sense.

After all, the combined vote totals of the NDP and Liberals in the last federal election surpassed the Conservative vote total.

However this is where political math comes in.

In political math two plus two does not always equal four; sometimes it actually equals three.

In other words, if the NDP and Liberals were to join forces there is no guarantee their respective support bases would come along for the ride.

In fact, it’s likely a merger would alienate many Liberals and New Democrats, causing a substantial number of them to join the Conservatives.

Why is this?

Well for one thing, the Liberals and NDP represent two distinct and separate political cultures.

Yes, broadly speaking both parties are on the left side of the political spectrum, but ideology still divides them.

The NDP, for instance, is an ideologically-oriented party that stresses “class warfare” and “democratic socialism.” It also has close connections to the union movement.

The Liberals, on the other hand, are less dogmatic about their “left wing” ideals and more business-friendly.

Indeed, when it’s necessary Liberals will happily embrace fiscally conservative policies as did former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who managed to balance the federal budget.

And this is not surprising because there exists within the Liberal Party a large contingent of so called “Blue Liberals” who are socially liberal but who still believe in the profit-motive.

Such Blue Liberals would probably be more comfortable in the Conservative Party than in a party where meetings were held in union halls and where everybody called each other “brother and sister.”

Likewise, there would also be many New Democrats unhappy to see a merger take place with Liberals.

This is especially true for the more populist brand of New Democrats who view the Liberals as corrupt pawns of corporate

Canada

They might not stick around in a new Liberal/NDP amalgam.

In fact, many populist-style NDPers in Western Canada actually voted for the old Reform Party, so it’s not too much of a stretch to think they could switch allegiances to the Conservatives.

And there’s another variable merger proponents should consider: Prime Minister Stephen Harper would absolutely welcome and cheer on a union between his two political enemies.

It’s true.

Back in the days when we worked together at the National Citizens Coalition he explained to me he would like to see Canada evolve into a two party system, like they have in the

United States

, a system that pitted a right wing party against a left wing party.

Harper’s view was that if you gave voters such a stark ideological choice, the conservatives would always have the advantage.

This is why, for instance, he has worked hard to eliminate the Liberal Party as a political force in

Canada

Of course, if the Liberals were to voluntarily become assimilated into the NDP socialist collective, well that would work just as well for his purposes.

In short, the correct mathematical equation representing a merger between Liberals and Conservatives would look like this:

Liberals + NDP = Happy Stephen Harper.

(This originally appeared in the Ottawa Hill Times.)

Beware Public Polls

2011-09-15T09:51:00.001-04:00

Whenever the results of a public opinion poll are splashed across the pages of a newspaper, I immediately seek out large grains of salt.

The fact is, all such polls should be greeted with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Now don’t get me wrong.

It’s not that I think the numbers in public domain polls are inaccurate or that their methodology is wrong.

My problem is that while public polls are good at telling us what Canadians are saying about issues or candidates, they don’t necessarily tell us what Canadians are actually thinking.

And that’s a crucial difference.

To paraphrase the old line which likened statistics to bikinis, what public polls reveal is interesting. But what they hide is often vital.

What am I talking about?

Well, let’s imagine a dialogue between a pollster and Mr. Smith:

Pollster: Tell me Mr. Smith do TV ads have any influence on your buying behavior?

Mr. Smith: Absolutely not. TV ads do not influence me in anyway. I don’t even pay attention to them.

Pollster: Alright. Next question. What brand of toothpaste do you buy?

Mr. Smith: I always buy Crest toothpaste.

Pollster: Why?

Mr. Smith: Because everybody knows people who use Crest have 23 percent fewer cavities.

Clearly, there is a difference between what Mr. Smith says about TV ads and what he actually thinks.

And just like Mr. Smith, people will sometimes give pollsters answers that don’t necessarily reflect reality; they will instead give answers which they deem socially or politically correct.

I am sure, for example, there are many Canadians who would tell a pollster that “negative ads” don’t work, but tell the same pollster they voted against former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff because he was “just visiting.”

That’s why the only sure way to find meaning in a poll is through a rigorous crosstab analysis in which you cross reference answers.

Otherwise, a poll can be deceiving.

Case in point, are all those public opinion polls released during the last election, which consistently and wrongly predicted another Conservative minority.

It’s not that the data in those polls was faulty, it’s more likely they just publicized the wrong answers.

Imagine the pollster from our fictional example with Mr. Smith, releasing a poll under the headline: “Survey shows TV ads don’t work.”

And public polls released by advocacy groups with an agenda to promote, should be especially treated with caution.

For instance, the Manning Centre for Building Democracy recently released a poll which supposedly indicates ideological differences across partisan lines “have virtually disappeared” in

Canada

As Allan Gregg, one of the pollsters behind the survey told the media, “What I think you are seeing here is something almost the equivalent of end-of-ideology epoch. There is no major differences left among the electorate in terms of directionally where we should be going.”

The Manning poll also purportedly reveals that a “unique strain of conservatism, combining free market principles, moderation, incrementalism and social justice” has become the new Canadian “mainstream.”

But does this poll reflect reality?

I doubt it because the Manning poll simply tells us how respondents answered a series of value questions.

It found wide support for notions such as government “learning from the past" and "governments should be concentrating on the problems of today rather than tomorrow” and government should move with “caution rather than boldness.”

Plus it found support for other traditional conservative traits such as “self-reliance.”

Maybe this is evidence of a new mainstream orthodoxy, or maybe it’s just Canadians answering questions which seemed designed to elicit a certain answer.

Is anybody really against self-reliance? Who would oppose governments learning from the past?

If you asked different value questions, you might find completely different ideological answers.

Again, the Manning poll is telling us what Canadians are saying, but not necessarily what they are thinking.

And it’s what people actually think that really matters.

Conservative Fundraisers Might be Nervous

2011-09-14T16:47:00.013-04:00

After having vanquished its foes in the last federal election, the Conservative Party of Canada looms over Ottawa like a political Colossus.

The government is stable; the party strong; its enemies relatively weak.

It’s good news all around – which ironically is bad news for Conservative fundraisers.

After all, nothing hurts political fundraising more than success.

That might sound strange, but it’s true.

To raise money from political donors you need to make an emotional pitch; you need to create a sense of crisis, you need to employ scare tactics.

That means using phrases along the lines of: “Send us as much money as possible and do it right away, or the country is doomed!”

The Conservatives always understood this dynamic.

For the past couple of years they would churn out regular direct mail fundraising appeals designed to strike fear into the heart of their donor base.

And since they led a minority government, they had plenty of effective ammunition because the inherent unstable political situation made it easy to create a sense of urgency.

Donors had to give money “right away” because a federal election was “imminent” or “just around the corner” and the Conservatives had to be prepared.

Plus they had a great enemy to target: the infamous Liberal-Socialist-Separatist Coalition.

The idea that such a Coalition could ever topple the Harper Tories and possibly form a government was enough to give any self-respecting Conservative donor nightmares.

So when the Tories asked for money donors were ready, willing and eager to open up their wallets and fork over the cash.

After all, the “Reckless Coalition” had to be stopped.

This in a nutshell is why the Conservatives were able to create what the media liked to call a “fundraising juggernaut.”

Indeed, last year the Conservatives raised a whopping $17 million in contributions and donations.

In contrast, the Liberals collected slightly more than $7 million.

It’s this massive edge in fundraising which gave the Conservatives an advantage over the other parties, when it came to buying advertising time.

But now the political dynamics are different.

For one thing the Conservatives have a majority and a fixed election date. That means we know the next federal election won’t take place until October 2015.

So the Tories can’t whip up hysteria among their base about an election that “could happen any day.”

But more seriously the threat of the Coalition is now gone. The Bloc has been effectively obliterated, the Liberals are in disarray and the NDP is in the midst of a possibly divisive leadership race.

In short, there is no real political threat on the horizon.

This is why fundraising will be more difficult for the Tories.

Sending out a letter that says something like, “Everything is just fine and dandy, but please send us money” won’t have much impact.

The other danger the Tories face is disillusionment.

There are probably many hard-core Conservative donors who were not happy with the Tory government’s fiscal record of increased spending and deficits.

Yet they were willing to cut the party some slack because it led a minority government.

However, that excuse is now gone.

And if the Tories don’t start providing more conservative style government many donors might stop giving money.

Then add in the uncertain economic times and general donor fatigue, and it all adds up to one thing: the Tory fundraising juggernaut could soon come to a screeching halt.

To make sure that doesn’t happen Conservative fundraisers will need to create both a renewed sense of urgency and a common enemy.

In short, they must figure out how to frighten donors out of their money.

Can they accomplish this?

Absolutely, they can.

In fact, the Tories are lucky because a new enemy has emerged which could keep their base mobilized and giving money.

I am talking about public sector unions.

Recently the Public Service Alliance of Canada announced it was going to wage a major PR offensive to oppose any Conservative efforts to reduce government services in the name of deficit reduction.

Apparently to get its message out, PSAC will use social media, email blitzes and will organize its community from coast to coast.

The Tories should pounce on this news for fundraising purposes.

They could pitch it like this: “The big union bosses are mounting a propaganda campaign to mislead Canadians. We must make sure Canadians know the truth. That’s why we need your most generous donation today… blah…blah….blah.”

The Conservatives could milk that angle for years, or at least until the next “crisis.”

Tories and Liberals Playing a Dangerous Game

2011-09-12T09:34:00.002-04:00

In the onset of their provincial election battle, the Ontario Liberals and Progressive Conservatives are both playing a dangerous game.

It all started with a Liberal trap.

But to understand the trap, you first need to understand the Grand Liberal Strategy.

And that strategy is pretty basic: Sinking in the polls, and burdened with an unpopular leader in Dalton McGuinty, the Liberals really had only one realistic option: go negative on PC leader Tim Hudak.

After all, if you can’t increase your poll numbers the next best thing is to drive down your opponent’s numbers.

But how should the Liberals attack? Hudak doesn’t have much baggage to readily exploit.

Well, the answer was to paint the PC leader as some sort of Tea Party-loving, scary, right-wing extremist.

And this is where the trap comes in.

In their recently released platform the Liberals announced they would give give a tax credit to skilled “new Canadians” to help them get work experience.

Whether or not this plan was a good one economically is beside the point; it really only had one purpose – to draw out a Tory attack.

In other words, the Liberals wanted the PCs to denounce this plan because it would perfectly fit the political narrative they were constructing: “You see,” the Liberals would exclaim, “The Tories are right-wing bigots! They are anti-immigrant. They are intolerant.”

And, for their part, the Tories eagerly took the bait.

The PCs, in fact, lost no time in denouncing what they called McGuinty’s plan to subsidize “foreign workers.”

So now with the trap sprung, the Liberals are in full attack mode, with McGuinty demanding Hudak apologize for using the politics of division.

Some in the media see this as a huge victory for the Liberals.

But is it?

Although the Liberal plan was a tactical success, it could ultimately end up a strategic failure.

The fact is the Tory complaint about “foreign” workers, although not politically correct, will likely resonate with many Ontario voters.

Why is this?

Well to be blunt, xenophobia is what you might call a default mind set for human beings; instinctively we are suspicious and wary of outsiders.

That’s why one of the most powerful forces in politics is tribalism.

Voters will self-identify themselves as members of various groups and they don’t like it when politicians favour “Them” (outsiders) over “Us.”

And in this case, the way the PCs are defining it, they are standing up for “Us” (Ontarians/Canadians) and the Liberals are standing up for “Them.” (Foreigners)

That’s a vote getter.

But the Tories have to be careful. If they come across as too strident on this issue it could generate a media-fuelled backlash. (Nobody considers themselves to be in the “bigot” group.)

Like I said, both sides are playing a dangerous game.

The Problem with YouTube

2011-09-07T10:03:00.000-04:00

When it comes to political communication the advent of YouTube, and other video-sharing websites, has been a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, YouTube allows both political campaigns and advocacy groups to inexpensively and quickly get their messages out to a potentially wide audience.

In other words, TV is no longer the only game in town as a communication medium for videos.

Now you can upload a political ad to a website and hope it generates enough buzz to go “viral.”

Unfortunately, however, the eagerness to create such viral campaigns has also helped to undermine the overall effectiveness of some political messaging.

What do I mean?

Well, instead of crafting ads to sway public opinion, political consultants and ad people are now producing spots that seemed designed solely to generate website “clicks”.

In short, getting a political point across is increasingly taking a backseat to creating spots which are sometimes funny, sometimes outlandish, or sometimes bizarre.

I saw this phenomenon first-hand last year while working in New Hampshire as a consultant in a Republican primary race for a US Senate nomination.

One of our opponents, a businessman named Jim Bender, came up with video spot called “Yum Yum.”

It featured an actor in an Uncle Sam costume greedily devouring cakes shaped like banks, cars and college diplomas. The more he ate, the more bloated Uncle Sam got.

The spot was certainly amusing and it generated a lot of good media coverage. One journalist gave it an “A” for creativity; a political newspaper called it a “must see” ad and it was featured on MSNBC.

So the Yum Yum ad generated media buzz and went viral, all the things you want a YouTube video to do.

But despite all that good stuff, the ad didn’t work where it really mattered; it didn’t help Bender win support.

Before the ads starting running he was mired in last place in the polls and that’s where he stayed right up to Election Day.

Yes his ad was entertaining, but it didn’t really give people a reason to think Bender would be an effective US Senator.

Hence it was a creative success, but a political failure.

Meanwhile, here in

Canada

the National Citizens Coalition, a conservative advocacy group, ran a similarly entertaining ad during the last federal election.

The NCC spot featured photos of the then three opposition leaders – Michael Ignatieff, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton -- superimposed on the bodies of the Three Stooges.

As the “Stooges” in the ad hit, bashed and poked each other, viewers were warned against “socialist” plans.

“Don’t be a stooge,” says the ad at the end “vote against socialism.”

Since the New Democrats enjoyed their most successful election in history, it seems the NCC’s video appeal to stop socialism wasn’t all that effective.

And that’s not surprising. The creators of the ad were so focused on creating a funny, imaginative ad, it seems they neglected to put any thought into their actual political message.

How does Moe bonking Curly on the head with a wrench cause Canadians to fear socialism?

Yet for the NCC that probably didn’t matter. All that mattered was amassing a large number of YouTube hits so they could brag about it to their members.

Now don’t get me wrong.

It’s perfectly fine to make political ads entertaining and humorous.

However, the humor must complement the overall strategic message you are trying to get across.

At the end of the day, after all, the goal isn’t just to make people laugh, it’s to win votes for your candidate or to win converts to your cause.

Don't blame democracy

2011-08-27T12:18:00.000-04:00

Dear Sir/Madam:

The Globe’s condescending take on plebiscitary democracy is misplaced. “HST’s defeat in BC shows danger of ruling by plebiscite”

Just because you disagree with British Columbia voters because they rejected the HST doesn’t mean they voted the wrong way.

In fact, voters usually make the right choice based on the arguments placed before them.

In the case of the BC plebiscite, the pro-HST side simply didn’t present a convincing enough case.

So don’t blame voters for the result and don’t blame democracy

In politics vagueness works

2011-08-19T07:46:00.002-04:00

Here’s some free political advice: If you’re running for elected office don’t ever give voters dozens of reasons not to vote for you.

Now you might think that’s stupid advice because, after all, what candidate or party would ever do such a ridiculous thing?

But believe me, it happens all the time.

It happens, for instance, every time a candidate releases a detailed and specific policy platform during or before an election.

These are the platforms candidates will proudly hold up at a news conference and say something like: “Here is an extensive list of my specific promises which I will enact to get the country/province/city moving again.”

Sometimes they even have special names: Contract with America, Red Book, Pledge to

America

, Changebook.

It’s a nice idea, but also an incredibly risky one.

It’s risky because every specific and detailed policy idea in your contract or book or pledge has the potential to anger or frighten or confuse a voter.

A voter might say to himself, “I really liked this candidate but then I read his 75 Point Platform, and I don’t like point 15, I hate point 56 and I would never vote for a guy who would carry out point 62.”

And there’s another danger of coming out with a detailed plan: It gives your political opponents potential ammunition to use against you.

Indeed, given that most voters don’t follow policy questions all that closely, it’s pretty easy to put a negative spin on any proposal or promise that’s new or untried or in any way controversial.

For instance, during the 2011 federal election the Liberals released a “Red Book” which promised to hike corporate tax rates and to end tax breaks for oil sands development.

This gave Conservatives an opportunity to pounce, which not surprisingly, they did.

Indeed, almost as soon as the Liberal Red Book was released, the Tories were calling it tax and spend politics.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty declared” “Michael Ignatieff’s election platform will raise taxes, kill jobs and put our economic recovery in jeopardy."

Sounds pretty scary doesn’t it?

Anyway, the point is the Liberals put themselves on the defensive, at a time when they should have been attacking.

This is not to say a candidate shouldn’t have some sort of “plan.”

It’s definitely a good idea to let voters know you have an agenda or vision.

But it’s always advisable to keep your plan as vague as possible, ie “Our plan is to reduce government waste, cut taxes and promote trade.”

Any plan that’s too detailed could do more harm than good.

But what about the Liberal Party’s famous Red Book plan released during the 1993 federal election?

It contained a detailed plan for

Canada

and conventional political wisdom suggests it played a major role in helping the Liberals win a massive victory.

But did it?

As statisticians like to say, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

In other words, just because a political party wins an election after releasing a detailed policy platform doesn’t mean the platform actually helped it win.

Any number of variables can determine the success or failure of a political campaign.

In the 1993 Canadian election, for instance, the Liberals were running against an extremely unpopular, tired and poorly led Progressive Conservative Party.

Given such a weak opponent, the Liberals would likely have won handily Red Book or no Red Book.

Indeed, I strongly suspect few Canadian voters even bothered to read the Liberal Red Book.

OK, I know all this sounds cynical.

But as someone once said, “cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth”.

Here’s why Senate reform isn’t going to happen

2011-08-11T13:31:00.001-04:00

Anyone who thinks

Canada

’s Senate will be reformed anytime soon should brush up on their ancient Roman history.

The Romans, like us, had a Senate.

And it was a political entity that for hundreds of years was basically powerless.

But it was resilient: In fact, the Roman Senate actually kept meeting for about one hundred years after the Empire had fallen.

The point I’m trying to make is that political institutions, no matter how archaic and ineffective they might be, can sometimes prove extremely durable and resistant to change.

The Canadian Senate is one such institution.

And yes I know Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Senate reform, including having elected Senators, is one of his priorities.

But that doesn’t mean his words or his promises will translate into action.

After all, the Prime Minister is a shrewd political thinker, meaning he probably realizes that taking on the massive job of Senate reform is not really in his interest.

For one thing, convincing the provincial Premiers to go along with reforming the Upper House will require expending an awful lot of energy and an awful lot of valuable political capital on an issue that offers little in the way of positive returns.

Plus, from the Prime Minister’s perspective the Senate probably works just fine as it is.

Why would he rush to have elected Senators when having the power to appoint people to the Senate gives him a great way to reward his loyal supporters?

And let’s face it, would Harper really want elected Conservative Senators, who won’t owe their jobs to his patronage, running around Ottawa?

Such Senators might show an independent streak and (horror of horrors) speak their own minds without regard to Conservative talking points.

Of course, the Prime Minister might still push for Senate reform if there was a public demand for it.

But does anybody really care about changing the Senate?

Certainly, people cared about 25 years ago.

Indeed, back then reforming the Senate was a hot topic in Western Canada, especially in Alberta.

For instance, Albertans were demanding what was called a “Triple –E Senate”, that is a Senate that was elected, effective and equal.

It was an issue the old Reform Party took on with great gusto.

But what generated interest in Senate reform wasn’t simply a desire to reform an outdated institution.

Albertans wanted an elected and equal Senate for one basic reason: protection.

The idea was a Triple-E Senate would provide a much-needed check on the power of the Liberal dominated House of Commons which Albertans increasingly came to view as hostile to their interests.

And they had reason for such suspicion; all too often the Liberals would sacrifice the needs of Alberta or exploit its resources to appease the vote-rich provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

A classic example of this behaviour was the National Energy Program, an ill-conceived Liberal scheme which devastated Alberta’s economy.

So it’s not surprising that Westerners clamored for a Senate with real legislative power and with equality for all the provinces.

In short, they needed an effective voice in Ottawa.

But things are different now in 2011.

The Liberals have been vanquished and the Prime Minister is not only a Conservative, he’s an Albertan.

That means the central government is no longer viewed as a threat to Alberta’s resources, meaning a reformed Senate is no longer needed.

Hence there exists no organized effort in Alberta or anywhere else for that matter, to push the Harper government on Senate reform.

As a result, the Senate will remain frozen in time.

None of this would surprise the Romans.

Voters tuning out politics

2011-08-04T11:38:00.001-04:00

According to a recent StatsCan report, a whopping 7.5 million Canadians didn’t bother to vote in the last federal election.

If you think that sounds bad, hang on; it gets worse.

Canadians, it seems, can’t even come up with good excuses as to why they won’t vote.

StatsCan reports more than a quarter (28%) of the non-voters said they were simply “not interested” in voting; while another 23% said they were just “too busy”.

In short, non-voters are apathetic about their apathy.

But what does this tell us about the state of politics in

Canada

Well, one thing it tells us is that many Canadian voters obviously don’t find the political dramas that make headlines all that riveting.

Political games and partisan battles just don’t interest them.

And it’s not just the non-voters who are tuning out.

Many Canadians who did cast ballots in the last election likely don’t follow political news all that closely.

Indeed, a poll released by the Liberal Party last January indicated only 15% of Canadians pay attention to politics.

Of course, some people do care about politics.

The activists, the partisans, the media, the political junkies – these are people who love politics, in the same way others love sports.

They will read news journals and editorials, follow blogs and online forums, attend conventions and march in rallies.

And these people know the issues backwards and forwards; they will debate experts on radio phone-in programs, they will read every line of a party’s policy platform and they will have well-thought out ideological beliefs and values.

They are informed and enthusiastic voters.

But the fact is, such political aficionados, while often vocal, represent only a tiny portion of the population.

They are, in other words, a small, small minority.

This is a fact media pundits, political consultants and politicians sometimes forget.

Every now and then, they fall into the trap of believing that just because their fellow political junkies are worked up about an issue, that all Canadians must be equally concerned about the same issue and for the same reasons.

Consider, for instance, the issue of government “ethics”, which prior to the May 2^nd federal election was a major concern.

Or at least, it was a major concern for the Opposition parties and for elements of the media.

For weeks the Conservative government took a pounding over issues like the Bev Oda/Kairos affair and the so-called Elections Canada “In-out” scandal and about whether or not the government was actually in contempt of Parliament.

Eventually, the Opposition parties, egged on by their partisan supporters and media allies, came to believe the question of government ethics was a winning political issue.

So in March, the Liberals and NDP toppled the government.

And the voters responded, of course, by giving the supposedly ethically-challenged, Conservatives a majority victory.

So much for ethics being a winning political issue!

The mistake the Liberals and NDP made was in assuming that causal Canadian voters actually cared about the kinds of ethical issues that people cared so much about on Parliament Hill.

Obviously, they didn’t.

In fact, it’s likely a large number of Canadian were only dimly aware of all the ethics controversies plaguing the government. And for many of those who were aware, it was simply not a priority.

This is a lesson all political communicators should take to heart.

Voters may not be into politics, they may not follow the political news, but they do have concerns.

To succeed, find out what truly matters to voters and craft a simple message that resonates.

Otherwise, your potential supporters might too “busy to vote”

Harper takes principled stand on Israel

2011-07-28T16:33:00.000-04:00

Few issues have earned Prime Minister Stephen Harper as much praise or scorn as has his strong and consistent support for the state of Israel.

Some have lavishly lauded Harper's pro-Israel stance as courageously standing up for a democratic ally; others have vehemently condemned him as a cynical apologist for Zionist occupiers.

But for me, this issue elicits a some what tamer reaction, something akin to satisfaction.

OK that might sound strange, but let me explain.

To my mind, Harper's strong support for Israel is a welcome sign that he still retains at least some of the principles he once held during the time we worked together at the National Citizens Coalition.

In case, you're not up on your Harper history, let me give a brief backgrounder.

From 1998 to 2001, Harper was president of the NCC, which at the time was Canada's leading conservative advocacy group and I was his vice president.

And during his stint at the NCC's helm, Harper was a principled small "c"conservative who vigorously urged politicians to balance budgets, cut spending and to generally make government smaller.

Since becoming Prime Minister, however, Harper has largely turned his back on the principles of fiscal conservatism he once passionately espoused.

Rather than making government smaller, he has made it bigger; rather than cutting back on spending he has plunged the country into a sea of red ink.

This has seriously disappointed me and many other fiscal conservatives who were hoping Harper would implement a true small government agenda.

But despite my disappointment, a part of me doesn't want to believe my old comrade has completely forsaken his values.

That's why I often find myself striving to find evidence that the Harper I once worked with still exists, that his soul still contains some glimmer of the principled NCC president.

His stance on Israel is just such a glimmer.

Now please understand the NCC under Harper did not take any public stances on Israel. We were concerned mainly with domestic policies and issues.

But he and I had many conversations about Mideast politics and his view was
clear: he believed Canada must remain loyal and true to Israel.

He believed this not out of any religious conviction, but because he said Israel was the only country in the Mideast that shared our democratic traditions and values.

And so he was, as he once put it to me, "extremely pro-Israel".

And today, he is following through on his belief.

Canada is now widely considered Israel's "best friend" because as Harper himself put it, "those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are in the longer term a threat to all of us."

Now don't get me wrong.

I am not naïve enough to believe that there isn't some cynical political calculation that's also involved when it comes to Harper's relationship to Israel.

After all, the Jewish state is no ordinary country.

By standing firmly behind Israel the Conservatives can attract Canadian Jewish votes; they can appease their evangelical Christian base (which is vehemently pro-Israel) and as a bonus, it's also a policy that's likely popular with mainstream voters.

In a world that's teeming with hostile dictators and fanatical enemies, Canadians probably have strong sympathy these days for a fellow democracy that's in the front-line in the battle against terrorism.

This is a case for the Prime Minister, in other words, where good policy, good politics and personal principle intersect.

And principle and personal conviction are traits we need more of in Canadian politics.

Now if only Harper would go back to supporting the principle of smaller government.

The wisest man I ever knew

2011-07-20T16:07:00.002-04:00

One of the wisest men I ever knew never graduated from high school.

He was a painter – and I don’t mean one of those artsy guys who get government grants to draw triangles.

I mean he was a tradesman, a man who worked hard his whole life painting homes and schools and factories.

He used colour to make the world a little more beautiful one brush stroke at a time.

And all the painting and scaffold building and climbing that went with the job, also made him strong.

In his older years, he would take great delight in challenging “young punks”, as he called them, to arm wrestling matches.

He won easily every time.

So why do I say he was wise?

Because he taught me a lot about what was important in life.

For one thing, when I was a teenager he taught me about the importance of education. He did this by getting me a summer job in factory that was so dark, so unbearably hot, so noisy and dirty I figured it was built from blueprints provided by Satan.

When I complained about the conditions, he said, “Well if you don’t want to work in a place like this for the rest of your life, stay in school!”

It was good advice.

He also taught me about the importance of loyalty.

A die-hard Detroit Red Wings fan, he stuck by his team even during the long drought of the 60s, 70s and 80s, decades during which the team was about as successful as a Michael Moore diet plan.

Yet, loyalty to his country superseded all else.

When the Red Wings finally won a Stanley Cup in 1997, their first in 42 years, I thought he would be deliriously happy.

But he wasn’t.

When I asked him why he wasn’t celebrating Detroit winning the Cup, he replied with an answer that would have made Don Cherry proud: “The Red Wings have too many God damned Russians on the team.”

Ironically, one thing this wise man never taught me was how to paint.

And that’s just as well because it meant I could always turn to him when I needed some painting done.

Not that I ever had to ask.

Whenever I moved into a new apartment or house, he would always show up on my doorstep, a brush in one hand, a can of paint in the other.

Of course, like any craftsman, he never tolerated amateurs messing up his work.

And so one time when my wife and I picked up brushes to help him paint around our house he looked at our work with a pained expression and declared: “Please don’t ‘help’ me.”

All this is coming to my mind because a few days ago, that wise man passed away.

I will miss his painting skills, his wisdom and his love.

He was my dad.

I figure right now he is standing on a cloud, a brush in one hand, a can of paint in the other, determined to make heaven look just a little more beautiful, one brush stroke at a time.

He is also probably telling God, “Please don’t help me.”

Freedom Forum

2011-06-26T11:42:00.000-04:00

In an effort to better promote conservative/libertarian values in Canada I have launched a new website called Freedom Forum.

Check it out.

About that Manning Centre poll

2011-06-08T15:56:00.006-04:00

When an advocacy organization releases a poll, it's usually done to promote the group's agenda.

In other words, the group is saying, "Hey look, this poll shows everybody agrees with us, therefore we must be right."

Case in point is a poll released by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

The Manning Centre people tell us this poll indicates "traditional ideological differences across partisan lines, on most big issues, have virtually disappeared.'

Or as Allan Gregg, one of the people behind the poll, declared, “What I think you are seeing here is something almost the equivalent of end-of-ideology epoch There is no major differences left among the electorate in terms of directionally where we should be going.”

Gregg bases this startling claim on the way respondents answered a series of "value" questions.

For instance, the poll found wide support for notions about government "learning from the past"; "governments should be concentrating on the problems of today rather than tomorrow” and government should move with “caution rather than boldness.”

The poll also supposedly indicates

Canada

has evolved its own “unique strain of conservatism", a strain that's different from the American-style Republican/Tea Party version.

Our conservatism apparently combines, "free market principles, moderation, incrementalism and social justice.”

But more than that, the Manning poll indicates this Canadian-style conservatism, “has become mainstream as the ideological ‘centre’ has shifted to a new conservative orthodoxy.”

And this is all due to Prime Minister Stephen Harper who as Gregg put it has “moderated the image of Conservatives to conform more with the kind of conservatism being expressed by the population.

Gregg also says the country has become less conservative in traditional “American conservative values” over the last year.

Really?

I don't think so. In fact, this whole poll is a bunch of hooey.

Here's why.

The Manning Centre makes the mistake of using a poll to reveal what people say, as opposed to what they really think.

First off, most people in general (Americans or Canadians) are wary about change, they want government to protect them, they want their standard of living secured.

Broadly speaking these are "conservative" values I suppose, but they are also human values.

Does this mean ideological differences don't exist?

No it doesn't. I suspect some of the respondents to the Manning poll who said government should learn from the past, also give money to the NDP or they may support new taxes on "the rich", others may want a flat tax or more money to health care.

The only way to tell would be to do a careful analysis of cross-tabs and a lot more questions.

In other words, this poll doesn’t really tell us much about the state of ideology in Canada.

But then again, I suspect that wasn’t the overall point of this poll.

My guess is the Manning Centre wants to justify or legitimize the Harper Conservative Party's, Liberal-lite, wishy-washy brand of conservatism.

Busy media day

2011-06-06T20:50:00.000-04:00

Had a lot going on this day.

Have a column in today's Globe and Mail on the question of money and politics. Is money really all that evil?

Also have a column in today's National Post in which I urge conservatives to make sure the Harper Tories don't take their support for granted.

Finally, I have a column in the Ottawa Hill Times on the Conservative Party's "Dirty Harry" political strategy. (It's behind a subscription wall.)

Additionally, I did a radio interview on the Arlene Bynon Show, (640 AM Radio Toronto) and appeared as a the Power Play "strategist panel."

Whew.

Turning the page

2011-06-05T14:27:00.002-04:00

Is former Parliamentary page Brigette DePape a courageous hero or a spoiled brat?

Actually she can be both: It all depends on your point of view.

More specifically it depends on how you expect people to behave.

For instance, we all expect people to follow society's rules. It's part of what makes us human.

Hence, DePape is regarded by many Canadians as nothing but a self-aggrandizing, troublemaker because she disrupted the Throne Speech, clearly breaking the Parliamentary rules.

Yet there are those who are applauding DePape's bit of political theater.

Do these people not believe in rules?

Yes they do, but they would argue DePape was following a rule that transcends Parliamentary protocol, namely that we should stand up for what we believe.

In other words, we are all reading the same book, but sometimes we are on a different page.

Media Alert

2011-06-04T07:23:00.002-04:00

I will be on The Weekend Morning News, (CKNW Vancouver) this morning at 10:07 AM ET to talk about civility in Parliament.

Media Alert

2011-06-03T05:27:00.001-04:00

Will be on Canada AM, this morning at 7:10 AM ET (!) to talk about the Harper majority.

Media Alert

2011-05-28T08:29:00.002-04:00

I am scheduled to be a guest on The Weekend Morning News, today at 10:05 AM ET to talk politics.

Harper and the Left

2011-05-26T08:09:00.000-04:00

Is it possible the Harper majority government could actually be good news for Canada's left?

Yes -- to see why, check out a column I wrote which appears in today's Toronto Star.

Wondering about Rae

2011-05-25T20:36:00.001-04:00

"I'd rather eat glass than see Bob Rae elected leader of my party."

That's what a Liberal partisan said to me back when Rae was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party.

I assume many Liberals were also of that view.

After all, the guy ending up losing to Stephane Dion, who on paper at least, was an inferior candidate to Rae.

Then, after Dion crashed like the Hindenburg, the Liberals denied Rae the chance to even run against Michael Ingatieff, who was acclaimed leader.

So clearly, he wasn't going to win any popularity contests.

But now the guy's "Interim" Liberal leader.

It all makes me wonder.

I wonder if he holds any bitterness about his past treatment?

I wonder if that explains his openness to having the Liberals merge with his old comrades in the NDP socialist collective?

I wonder how much damage a "past his prime" leader can do to a party, that's struggling to have a future?

Oh well, at least I don't have to wonder about the Liberals' leader-picking abilities.

Obviously, they haven't got a clue.

Political subsidies

2011-05-24T08:17:00.000-04:00

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will soon eliminate the public "per vote" subsidy for politicians.

It's a good idea, but I just hope he's doing the right thing for the right reasons.

To see what I mean, check out this Ottawa Citizen column I wrote which appears in today's paper.

Also, the Ottawa Hill Times recently interviewed me on the very same topic.

Media Alert

2011-05-21T08:17:00.000-04:00

I will be on two radio shows this morning:

First will be on The House, CBC radio to discuss Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Senate -- 9:00 AM ET

Second, will be on The Weekend Morning News, (CKNW Vancouver) to talk about the new cabinet. Sometime after 10:00 AM ET.

Media Alert

2011-05-19T12:07:00.000-04:00

Am scheduled to be on The Caldwell Account -- Sun News Network at 2:40 PM ET to talk about the Senate appointments.

Media Alert

2011-05-19T07:30:00.002-04:00

I am scheduled to be on Madely in the Morning (CFRA radio Ottawa) today at 8:40 AM to talk about those Senate appointments.

New Cabinet

2011-05-18T12:27:00.003-04:00

The Prime Minister unveiled his new cabinet today, which is newsworthy because it means journalists will now have to find something else to speculate about.

Also newsworthy about the cabinet is it's size, I mean in terms of population the cabinet is now the fifth largest city in Canada.

In fact, it's so large its meetings will now take place in the Rogers' Centre.

Anyway, here's a partial list of the new cabinet:

Marjory Lebreton, Minister in Charge of coming up with new excuses for not reforming the Senate

Bev Oda, Minister Responsible for Sticking it to all you critics out there!

John Baird, Minister in charge of foreign relations, and if those foreigners better like it or else.

Tony Clement, President of Ensuring Canada's Fake Lake needs.

Jason Kenney, Commander-in-Chief of government’s Very Ethnic Legions

Joe Oliver, Minister in charge of Being from Toronto

Julian Fantino, Associate Minister in charge of getting Peter MacKay his coffee

Maxime Bernier, Minister of Actually talking like a conservative

Lynne Yelich, Minister of State for Pork

Gary Goodyear, Minister of (Prime Minister will dream up some important-sounding title later)

Should be a great four years of big government.

Media Alert

2011-05-17T14:05:00.000-04:00

You can see me tonight on CHCH TV's Square Off, at 5:30 PM ET talking about the issue of subsidies for political parties.

Also, am quoted in this Globe and Mail story on the same issue.

Media Alert

2011-05-16T15:12:00.002-04:00

Watch for me tonight on CTV's Power Play, at approximately 5:35 PM on the "strategist" panel.

Harper and the welfare plan for politicians

2011-05-16T07:40:00.001-04:00

Here's my latest column from the Ottawa Hill Times, it suggests the Liberals better hope Prime Minister Stephen Harper remember his principles when it comes time to scrap the public subsidy for politicians. (It's behind a subscription wall.)

Helping the Liberals pick a leader

2011-05-14T17:13:00.003-04:00

As we all know, the Liberal Party of Canada is on the lookout for yet another victim, er I mean leader.

It’s a tough position to fill.

After all, not everybody has the special skill set it will undoubtedly take to lead a once great party into oblivion.

So perhaps the Liberals should start thinking “outside the box” when considering leadership candidates.

For example, here are a few ideas I came up with:

Elizabeth May

Not only is May on the same page as the Liberals when it comes to recycling light bulbs or whatever, she also has lots of practice leading fringe parties

Charlie Sheen

OK I have no idea why Sheen would make a good Liberal leader, but including his name in these sorts of lists is mandatory.

Stephane Dion’s dog, “Kyoto”

As a dog, Kyoto has all sorts of good qualities: he is loyal, friendly and would provide much needed companionship to the Liberal party. And if the party’s popularity declines under his leadership, the Liberal caucus can just smack his nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Justin Bieber

Has a huge fan base, plus has a much better haircut than Stephen Harper.

Osama Bin Laden

Yes, I know he’s dead, but heck so is the Liberal Party.

Getting it right

2011-05-10T16:07:00.001-04:00

Neil Reynolds recently had column in the Globe and Mail in which he urged conservatives to cease criticizing the Prime Minster for moving away from his principles.

In response, I wrote the following letter to the editor which appeared in today's paper:

Getting it right

Neil Reynolds (Canada’s Conservatives Should Ease Up On Harper – May 9) argues there is no place in politics for what he calls “ideological purity.” But for many conservatives, it’s not a question of ideological purity, but of what’s right and wrong for Canada.

They believe it’s wrong to spend and borrow the country into deficit; wrong for the state to infringe on individual liberties and wrong to expand the size and scope of government.

It’s also wrong for Stephen Harper to ignore his conservative political base, the people whose money, time and votes helped propel him to a majority government. In short, Canadian conservatives have showed loyalty to the Prime Minister, he should now show loyalty to them.

Of course, some will say all that matters is winning power. But if winning power means simply replacing one Liberal government with another, then it’s a hollow victory indeed.

Media Alert

2011-05-10T10:14:00.000-04:00

I will be a guest today on John Gormley Live at noon ET. Topic: Demise of the Liberals.

Tories need to free their inner conservative

2011-05-10T08:50:00.002-04:00

Check a column I wrote on Conservatives and conservatives which appears in today's National Post.

Media Alert 2

2011-05-09T15:20:00.002-04:00

Will be appearing on CTV's Power Play tonight at 5:35 PM ET to talk about the Liberal Party and its (non)future.

Also, FYI -- I will be appearing every Monday on Power Play on their "strategist panel."

Media Alert

2011-05-09T12:19:00.000-04:00

Am scheduled to appear on two radio shows today to talk about the Stephen Hoperites.

* 1:35 PM ET will be on Michael Harris Live. (CFRA radio Ottawa)

* 2:30 PM ET will be on The Charles Adler Show (Corus Radio Network)

Hill Times Column

2011-05-09T10:03:00.000-04:00

I am now a regular columnist for the Ottawa Hill Times, a great newspaper that's a must read for political junkies of any political stripe.

My first column deals with the fall of the Liberal Party. (It's behind a subscription wall)

Key quote: "The Liberal Party is a zombie – it’s dead but just doesn't know it."

Anyway, I would strongly recommend you subscribe to the Hill Times, it features excellent columnists, interesting analysis, not to mention solid political reporting.

You won't want to miss a single issue. See here to get a free trial subscription.

Hope and Consevatives

2011-05-08T08:58:00.000-04:00

Check out my column in today's Ottawa Citizen, in which I discuss the political impact of the "Stephen Hoperites".

Media Alert

2011-05-07T13:15:00.000-04:00

Will be on the Roy Green Show today at 2:05 PM ET to talk about my Open Letter to Stephen Harper.

My Open Letter to Stephen Harper

2011-05-07T09:52:00.002-04:00

Dear Stephen:

Congratulations on your recent historic victory!

You have certainly come a long way from your days at the National Citizens Coalition

Do you remember back in January 1997 when you joined me on the staff of the NCC.

In our first conversation after you joined up you asked me how I would describe myself ideologically.

My answer was that I considered myself a "conservative libertarian."

I wasn't sure if you knew what I meant, but you did. You told me that's what you considered yourself too.

And as conservative libertarians, both you and I agreed at the time that individual liberty mattered, that it was wrong for the state to coerce its citizens, that maximum freedom required minimal government.

But for you this wasn't just some "abstract ideological" notion. You wanted the NCC to fight for individual liberty.You wanted the NCC to be about more than just plastering pigs on billboards and exposing government waste.

In fact, you made promoting individual freedom a high priority for the organization.

Your idea was to use the courts to fight for freedom. I remember this idea was a little controversial for some NCC supporters, who like many conservatives mistrusted our court system.

But you believed conservatives could and should use the courts to achieve their ideological goals, just as the left was using the courts to achieve theirs.

Anyway, under your leadership the NCC become involved in several historic court battles aimed at curtailing the powers of the state and promoting the democratic rights of citizens.

We took on the Canada Wheat Board monopoly, election gag laws and Quebec's anti-English language legislation.

All these case had one thing in common: they were about freedom -- freedom of the individual to speak out during elections, freedom for western farmers to make economic choices, freedom for Canadians to express themselves in the language of their choice.

And I have no doubt that had you stayed on at the NCC a bit longer, you would have also gone to court to take on the Human Rights Commissions.

Indeed, here's what you said about the HRC in 1999, "Human Rights Commissions as they are evolving are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society ... it is in fact totalitarianism."

I mention all this because now you're Prime Minister of a majority government. That means you don't need the courts anymore to protect our freedoms. Nor do you have to worry about politically bloody battles in the House of Commons.

Now you have the power to make Canada a freer, better place.

That's why I hope there remains in you at least some of the "conservative libertarian" principles you once held dear.

I hope you move quickly to scrap election gag laws, to end the Wheat Board monopoly, to speak out for English-speakers in Quebec and to rein in the Human Rights Commission.

And yes, I know many of your advisors, pollsters and people in the media are telling you to avoid "ideological issues."

But promoting freedom isn't so much about ideology as it is about doing what's right, about standing up for citizens.

If you as Prime Minister don't use this opportunity to do what's right, who will?

You're our last chance.

Media Alert

2011-05-07T07:50:00.000-04:00

Will be on The Weekend Morning News (CKNW Vancouver) today to talk election.

Signs of Liberal demise

2011-05-06T10:21:00.000-04:00

Lots of debate as to whether or not the Liberal Party is dead or just in an irreversible coma.

To help clear things up here are some signs to look for to ascertain if the Liberal Party is most sincerely dead:

Al Qaeda doesn’t demand to see photo of Liberal Party corpse.
Bob Rae gives up party membership and joins the Tea Party
Several Quebec advertising companies declare bankruptcy
Justin Trudeau legally changes last name to “Diefenbaker.”
Beer and popcorn sales plummet
Incidences of wounds involving knife stabs to the back dramatically fall
Liberal Party headquarters is turned into “Chretien Golf Ball” museum
CBC scraps plan to produce 12 hour “bio-documentary” celebrating life and times of Stephane Dion’s dog.
Liberal Party acclaims Pierre Trudeau’s Panama hat as its next leader.
Ken Dryden gives up politics decides to join organization with more recent success than Liberals ---The Ottawa Senators