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

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

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

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

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.

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:

1. He carried out the extremely important task of posing for photo ops in exotic locations with adorable Panda bears.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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

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

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

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"

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

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

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.