Day Three: Coalitions and conversation

As the election we didn't expect/knew was coming all the time (team 2012/2011, respectively) moves into Day Three,  two general things to watch:

The coalition thing: Judging from the conversation on Twitter on Day 2, this  business about coalition prospects  is annoying. Some are annoyed by its dominance of political debate. Some are annoyed by the things being said, on all sides. Some are annoyed by the memories of 2008 that Harper has dredged up. Some are annoyed that a perfectly acceptable part of parliamentary democracy is being sullied by politics. Some are annoyed that they seem to have entered a conversation halfway through it, and don't get the private-school-debating points that seem to be in play. 

Quick answer to all those who are annoyed: You have an absolute right  to be annoyed, and as long as you keep being riled up, it will stay on the political agenda. Politicians reward emotion with more emotion. It's better than apathy.  Anger's an easy thing to whip up. Optimism is  a little more difficult. Speaking as a journalist, I'd love a happy, hopeful issue to cover, and suggestions on what would maintain your abiding interest, minus the anger,  would be most useful. 

I will say, however, to all those who argue that this coalition stuff is irrelevant: first, if the Prime Minister decides to hammer at it on every occasion, we're going to cover it. (Yes, that is another way of saying, childishly, "he started it.") Second, this whole business of coalitions is getting reporters into the terrain of discussing political lies, character and the ability to work with others. These are not insubstantial matters in politics, or life, for that matter. They are about political culture. We can talk to you about a three-percentage-point shaving of corporate taxes, but we like to think you care about the culture of politics too. (As an aside, it's actually amusing to watch people trying to turn this into an abstraction. If you lived around human beings, you get the issue: no one wants to admit weakness. You're not going to find a politician entertaining the prospect that he (no she among the leaders) might not get the win he  wants. 

The Twitter campaign: This isn't scientific, but my email inbox tells me that this election is attracting all kinds of new, Twitter converts. I welcome you all to the debate there, which I can report -- for the most part -- is civil, fun and addictive. People are talking, good laughs are rewarded, and nastiness is kept to the fringe. (Unlike blogs, in that  nastiness terrain, which may be an interesting phenomenon, worth exploring.)

Had you been on Twitter yesterday, you would have seen some good-natured fun about Jason Kenney accidentally typing that Brampton candidate Parm Gill had a good work "ethnic." (I think Kenney has deleted the tweet.) You would have seen Bob Fife, of CTV, reporting that Harper told folks he "could live on sausage." You would have seen Ignatieff's wife, Zsuzsanna, posing with a puppy for a picture or bagels being handed out aboard the bus. This is also what political life is all about. Welcome, sincerely, to our world. You will find it hard not to like all the people in it. 

If you are a political junkie, sign up to Twitter, download Tweetdeck and set the columns (that plus sign at the top of the screen) to search for #cdnpoli or #elxn41. Watch the conversation and take part. I promise you that from this quarter, you'll get a respectful hearing. 

That's where we are on Day Three. If you're here at this blog, you probably are interested in politics. So plunge right in. Let's keep it civil and respectful, and we'll try to reward your interest.  

Here is the answer to the coalition question

For the rest of this campaign, when the coalition question comes up, there is one, simple answer: "I support the work of the non-partisan panel of constitutional experts trying to answer these hypothetical questions in the case of an unclear election result.  I will follow the guidelines they set out, based on Canadian law and parliamentary tradition." 

Click the link here to see what I'm talking about. It worked in Britain and New Zealand. 

Or paste this link into your internet browser: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/961926--ignore-what-canadians-politicians-say-about-a-coalition-government

That's it. If anyone decides they can't go along with this panel's findings, they are admitting that communications spin (we often call it playing with the truth) trumps the law.  And Canadians are not that stupid. Let's let the grownups get on with the conversation, shall we? And have a serious election debate about issues of importance to the country? 

Ten lessons from eight campaigns

Canada's about to get another election -- the eighth in my career as a political journalist. Here, a loose collection of lessons I've learned from those eight campaigns, mostly revolving around what I know best -- how the media cover elections.  

1. The politicians don't decide the elusive "ballot question." The voters do. 

2. After a flurry of headlines and front-page news for the first week, the election goes quiet in the second week. It is entirely possible to forget (unless you're in the middle of it) that we're actually having an election. Campaign stories slip off the front pages and sometimes off the nightly news all together. Public attention doesn't pick up again until after the televised leaders' debates, which usually take place around Week 3. 

3. About those debates. Everyone resolves not to talk about "knock-out punches," because they are a hackneyed cliche and rarely happen in real life.   When the debates happen, everyone talks about "knock-out punches" and whether they happened. Everyone forgets that it takes a few days to determine what was the "defining moment" of the debates; it's often not what the commentators  said it was that evening.  

4. Reporters will make "fit to govern" judgments based on how well the tour buses perform  in the area of feeding and accommodating the media. Campaign buses that get lost or break down or fail to provide three square meals a day to reporters will be pronounced abject failures at political leadership/competence. 

5. All media will declare that they're going to not report on polls in the same old way and will break that promise by Day 2. 

6. All media will say that they're going to talk to "real people," not strategists and communications advisers. The "real people" they ask for opinion will quickly turn into armchair strategists and communications advisers. 

7. Applies to all parties: Policy announcements will be made in the morning, the rest of the day will be a flurry of reactions while the campaign planes/buses travel, and the evenings will be devoted to rallies.  This means that the reporters aboard the planes actually only have news to file in the mornings and people watching TV  are more up to date than the tour reporters about what's happened that day in the campaign. 

8. There will be arguments on the tours about the price of seats aboard the planes/buses. Reporters will say that their money should guarantee a minimum number of scrums with the leaders, which is sort of like paying for access, an ethical  no-no, but we'll argue the point anyway, with some enthusiasm.

9. All politicians will say they're going to win. They are not lying to us. Every politician has to believe they're going to win, just to get out of bed every morning and do the hard work of campaigning every day. Journalists will persist in trying to get the politicians to say they're going to lose/falter, however.  

10. Some of the best stories of the campaign will be produced by people off the buses. Which will make us all wonder whether we should revisit the idea of mass coverage of the tours, but at the next election, we'll all hop aboard those leaders' buses again anyway. 

 

Hope that helps. Welcome to Campaign 2011. 

 

Madmen politics

Is it time to talk about limits on political advertising, legislated or voluntary?

Late yesterday, the Senate held second reading of a bill to limit spending on political ads -- outside the election-campaign period. It's Senator Dennis Dawson's bill, and I'll put some of his speech, and the elements of his proposed legislation, at the end of this post.

This is an issue that has particular significance at this very moment. We're not in an election yet, so Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats and everyone else are absolutely free to blow thousands, millions of dollars on advertising. Once a campaign starts, probably this weekend, they will all be subject to the same limits. 

Some people are expressing worries that the Conservatives will deliberately delay going to the Governor-General's residence so that they can have a few more days to bombard the airwaves with their no-limit ads. 

I'm wondering if this whole business of negative ads, in between elections, could be a sleeper issue for a political party. The Green Party thinks so.  Would Canadians be keen to see an end to these things?

Apparently the TV networks used to have a rule against running political ads between elections -- a rule that's obviously been abandoned. (I learned this from Robin Sears, who was talking on Cross-Country Checkup a few weeks back; have not seen anything written about it.)   Meanwhile, Advertising Standards Canada, in the last election campaign, gently reminded Canadians that political parties are exempt from the voluntary code that governs private-sector advertising. (Which is why you don't see Tim Hortons running ads attacking the patriotism of Starbucks customers.) Maybe a political party or two might want to opt in to the standards? As a gesture of good faith/integrity? 

Any outright ban on negative ads would probably collide with   Charter rights over  freedom of expression. Senator Dawson's bill doesn't propose a ban -- he just wants those outside-campaign ads to be included in the legislated limits on advertising  during election campaigns. Here's basically how it would work, according to the backgrounder: 

Bill S-227 would amend the Canada Elections Act to address advertising expenses incurred by a registered political party during a 3-month period immediately prior to a general election campaign.  The Bill would bring those expenses within the definition of an “election expense”, so that they are counted against the limits imposed on party advertising during an election.  It would not ban political party advertising, nor would it affect in any way third party advertising.  While the expenses would count for purposes of election spending limits, they would not be eligible for reimbursement by taxpayers.  Thus, there is no draw on public funds.

And here's a sampling of what Sen. Dawson had to say about his bill during yesterday's debate in the red chamber. The bill doesn't have a hope in heck of getting through before the next election, but maybe for next time?? 

 

Clearly, if a party can engage in an advertising free-for-all blitz campaign immediately prior to visiting the Governor General, there is a loophole in the current legislature.... 

 

For decades now, political parties have always waited the election call before launching their official campaign. But now, the Conservatives are trying to impose on Canadians permanent campaigning the same way it is done in the United States....  The Canadian way is to debate ideas, not to throw money around all year long to try to discredit your opponents. The Canadian way is also to work and govern between each election, not to spend most of your time campaigning against the other political parties.  Canadians are expecting their parliamentarians to develop and work on legislature, not on electoral ads on a permanent basis. The core question of this debate is the following: Do we want to be in permanent electoral mode as the Conservatives are trying to do, or do we want to preserve the Canadian tradition of having fair elections, where ideas prevail over money?  

 

What's left of the united right

Around 2003, Stephen Harper engineered the  merger between the old Progressive Conservatives (led by Peter MacKay) and the Canadian Alliance (originally the Reform Party.) It was not a coalition, which involves power-sharing. And given what's happened to the constituent parts, it probably wasn't much of a merger either. If you consider the evidence, there's not much left of the ingredients of the merger/takeover, on either side. 

Peter MacKay. Not doing so well. Maybe not so happy. 

Brian Mulroney. Exiled.

Friends, former employees  of Mulroney. In big trouble.

Stockwell Day. Gone. 

Chuck Strahl, Jay Hill. Gone. And Gone. 

Tom Flanagan. In the doghouse, because of his book. 

What's left of that merger/takeover? Well, there's Stephen Harper. And his Mike Harris friends.   But the stalwarts of the parties he took over or even helped found? Lost along the way, apparently. 

 

 

 

The "close consultation" coalition

Today, in reply to questions about a possible Liberal-NDP coalition after the next election, NDP leader Jack Layton said that if Harper persists in "hypocritical" attacks on that score, he'll pull out a  letter from 2004. Here is one I found on the web (note disclaimer at the bottom.)

That troublesome election

It now seems we have an election on the way. Which is being billed, by some in government, on Twitter and in some news "streeters" on TV last night,  as a bit of a bother. This is apparently because we are evolved as a nation enough to be kind of sarcastic/cool about elections, as opposed to nations we have to invade or bomb or censure at the United Nations to ensure that people have the right to vote.

That's not a throwaway line. It's worth thinking about how we keep being told that participating in the country is a nuisance.

Canada's long-form census is now voluntary, not mandatory, just like our elections. In other words, feel free to throw that census form or ballot in the garbage can, and go back to whatever you were doing before that 
intrusive question was foisted upon you. And don't forget taxes. They too are annoying, if you listen to the political noise. Parliament -- that thing you elect -- just a place where people play games. The public service -- a  burdensome obstacle.  Is there anything about the civic life of this country that stands above insults from the political class?

Now, an election is upon us, probably within days, barring some major backing-down. 

The politicians we've elected ought to stop pandering to this democracy-is-so-annoying  stuff. It's not consistent with the praise that's repeatedly (and rightly) heaped on the Canadian troops, who sacrifice much for democratic ideals. It also assumes that people, other than the soldiers, are idiots.

The fact that folks  got angry about Parliament being prorogued, about the mandatory census being scrapped, tells me that Canadian citizens are  not stupid at all, and they don't like being called lazy or uninterested. Besides, practically speaking, insulting the electorate doesn't seem to be the best way to get people's votes.  

 

It's the economy AND democracy

For weeks now, political junkies have been wondering which was the issue that would provoke the collapse of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government. Would it be the economy (the budget)? Would it be democracy (the Speakers' ruling on contempt)?

It seems to me that Jack Layton has just managed to fuse the two issues into one big rejection of the Harper government. Yes, he didn't like what was in the budget, but he also didn't like the way Harper treated the parties in a minority Parliament. That latter point is what seemed to make Layton look truly outraged in his post-budget interviews.

And Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is only likely to have inflamed that anger even more when he said, in his post-budget interview with CBC, that the government didn't believe it was its job to work with the opposition parties in crafting the budget. The government consults with Canadians, Flaherty said, not political rivals. That sounds an awful lot like the back of the hand to Parliament -- the same thing that prompted the historic Speaker's ruling against Harper's government.

So in the end, what will be the death of this Parliament? It's the economy AND the democracy stuff, all in one package.

The Turnout Factor

Between the 2006 and 2008 elections, nearly one million people tuned out of federal politics. You won't hear any of the parties boasting about this, but all three of the major national parties -- the New Democrats, the Liberals and yes, even the Conservatives, lost voters. 

 Stark numbers, in terms of total ballots cast: 

2006: 14,908,703 or 64.7 per cent of eligible ballots

2008: 13,929,093, or 58.8 per cent of eligible ballots 

 

Liberals were, by far, the biggest losers in this decline, seeing their total vote drop by 846,230 votes, or 18 per cent. 

Conservatives and New Democrats, on the other hand, lost only around 3 per cent of their total votes.  

What does this mean in terms of an election campaign that could come as soon as this week? 

For the Liberals, it means persuading people that voting matters -- apathy is as big an enemy for the party as the Conservatives are. When you lose nearly a million ballots between elections, not to other parties, but merely to a shrug, your  biggest task is to shake support off the couches of the nation. The Conservatives and the New Democrats need an engaged electorate simply to make gains, but both parties are more focused, strategically, on the specific ridings -- even the specific polls, I'm told -- where they need folks to show up at the ballot box. 

One million votes can make a huge difference and in close races, defining differences. It's worth remembering that Julian Fantino only won the Vaughan by-election late last year with less than 1,000 votes over his Liberal rival. Anyone who was watching CPAC's live-camera coverage of Fantino's campaign headquarters on by-election night (I admit it: I was one of them) could see those bitten nails. If that's a portent of how a general election works, watch for all parties to be paying close attention to the turnout factor. 

A blog about another blog: Shopping for Votes

In January, Harper's magazine (no relation to the current prime minister) ran a great cover story, asking snazzy ad people to come up with a TV spot to promote the federal government during the Super Bowl. The idea was that in a consumer culture, maybe only the tools of the marketing business could rescue a beleaguered democratic institution. 

One often hears that we should run government like a business. What would a business do if it saw brand loyalty give way to such brand hostility? Wouldn’t its executives summon the alchemists of advertising? The day after last November’s midterm elections, Harper’s Magazine gathered creatives from four ad agencies and assigned them a daunting task: to develop a television spot for the federal government. And not just any television spot. We wanted one both memorable enough and entertaining enough to compete in the most expensive televised-marketing event of the year—the Super Bowl.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have an ongoing interest as well in the intersection of consumer culture and politics. Some very smart people in Canada also share an interest in politics and marketing, and I'm happy to say that we've gathered them together into a new blog, called Shopping for Votes.  What's great about these contributors is that they're not your usual suspects -- they are new and interesting voices in the political fray.

Don't take my word for it, though. Check out the first two instalments this weekend, by Andre Turcotte at Carleton and Alex Marland at Memorial University. If we do get an election within the week, I think you'll find their insights valuable and interesting. And there are a lot more to come.