Harper Faces Frustratingly Fuzzy Future

Note: This column first appeared in the Ottawa Hill Times in September, 2014; I think the analysis still holds.

For Prime Minister Stephen Harper this must be a particularly frustrating time.

And no, what’s frustrating him isn’t the Conservative Party’s consistently poor showing in public polls, or the scandals which have plagued his government or his increasingly toxic relationship with the media.

In fact, none of that stuff would really bother Harper.

What would irk him, however, is the fuzzy nature of Canada’s political future.

Keep in mind that Harper is a meticulous planner and strategist; he’s like a general who won’t commit his troops to battle until he’s accounted and planned for every possible contingency.

In short, he doesn’t like surprises; he doesn’t want to improvise a strategy in the heat of combat.

Yet, whenever Harper scans the political terrain that will serve as the battle ground for the 2015 election, his view is obstructed by dark clouds of uncertainty.

For one thing, no one, including Harper and his strategists, knows how Liberal leader Justin Trudeau will perform once he’s thrown into the lion’s den of a national election campaign.

And Trudeau’s performance will matter because for the past year or so, the Conservatives have been airing TV ads telling us that Trudeau is “in over his head.”

These ads are meant to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of Canadians, seeds the Conservatives hope will bloom during an election, when voters will start to truly focus on the Liberal leader.

If, during the election, Trudeau stumbles, if he commits a series of verbal gaffes, if he performs poorly during the televised leaders’ debate, it will reinforce the Conservative message that he’s not up to the job.

But pinning all your hopes on an opponent making mistakes is always a gamble.

What if Trudeau campaigns like a pro; what if his winning smile charms the electorate?

That’s something Harper needs to consider.

And the “Trudeau factor” is not the only unknown confounding Harper.

He also has to worry about the NDP. More specifically, he must be wondering how the NDP, and its leader Thomas Mulcair, (who like Trudeau has never run a national campaign) will fare against the Liberals.

This is a key question because for Harper to succeed in 2015 he needs the NDP to soak votes away from the Liberals. He especially needs the NDP to keep the Liberals from scoring an electoral breakthrough in Quebec.

Is the NDP up to the job? Can Mulcair put a dent in Trudeau’s popularity? How will Quebeckers react to a Mulcair vs. Trudeau tilt?

Nobody knows. And that puts Harper’s plans in a state of flux.

Then to muddle things up even more, Harper also has to consider that the world itself is becoming increasingly unpredictable.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is rattling sabers in Eastern Europe; barbaric terrorist organizations are conquering huge swathes of territory in the Middle East; Israel and Hamas are at each other’s throats.

Given all this instability, what will the world look like when Canadians go to the polls a year from now? What will our economy be like? Will there be a war? Will there be a terrorist attack in North America or Europe?

We just don’t know.

And more to the point, Harper doesn’t know.

All these unknowns, all these variables, all these question marks, will make it extremely difficult for Harper to calculate a winning political equation.

Yet, of course, that won’t stop him and his team from trying to craft such a plan.

But just to cover all their bases, they will also have to prepare a Plan “B” and a Plan “C” and maybe even a Plan “D.”

Merv Lavigne RIP

It saddened me to learn of the recent passing of a great Canadian named Merv Lavigne

I knew Merv way back in the 1980s when he was a community college teacher from Haileybury, a small town in northern Ontario.

And what made Merv a great Canadian, at least to my mind, was his courage and his willingness to fight for what he believed in.

In fact, that’s how Merv and I ended up crossing paths; in 1985 he joined forces with a group I once worked for, the National Citizens Coalition, to fight a legal battle aimed at changing Canada’s labour laws so that union bosses would no longer have the power to use forced dues to subsidize their political propaganda.

Merv, a Liberal activist who had run for federal office, didn’t like the fact that a portion of his dues was being used to subsidize the New Democratic Party and other causes.

So, with the NCC’s moral and financial support, Merv launched what would prove to be an historic court challenge.

Merv’s argument was simple: Forcing him to associate with a political party, through his compelled union dues, violated his freedom of association which was guaranteed in the then newly minted Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And although Merv was just one guy, his challenge scared the bejeezus out of Canada’s entire union movement.

Indeed, just about every big union organization in the country intervened in this case to oppose him.

Alas, it was a David vs Goaliath battle where Goliath ended up winning.

In 1991 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Merv, which is why, by the way, unions today are free to spend millions of dollars in forced union dues on political propaganda campaigns, whether their unionized employees like it or not.

And a lot of them don’t like it.

At any rate, I’ll always remember Merv as a guy who cheerfully and tirelessly endured six years of arduous legal combat.

It was a lot of work for a guy who already had a full time job: He attended fundraising events across the country, spoke to countless organizations, did hundreds of media interviews.

He also, sadly, endured harassment.

But never once did I ever hear him utter a single word of complaint.

One positive by-product of Merv’s hard work, was it significantly raised his profile and made him something of a media star.

The NCC’s own internal polling showed he had incredible favourables. People liked him; they liked his message. And why not? He had proven to be an intelligent and articulate spokesman.

Had he wished to re-enter the political arena, Merv could have easily got himself elected to Parliament and we told him so.

But, having enough of the limelight, he decided to focus on his family and his career.

Mind you, Merv had already accomplished a lot.

He put a key question of individual freedom on the national agenda; he rattled the establishment’s cage, and he fought a good fight for his principles.

That’s a pretty good epitaph.

The Five Stages of Justin Trudeaumania

Stage 1. Euphoria

Oh my God! Justin Trudeau, the cutest, most adorable, most charming man in the history of our planet, is now leader of the Liberal Party. Actually, he’s more than a man … he’s a Super Hero!  His looks, his charisma, his pedigree, combined with his magical ability to transform normally apathetic and disengaged young people into disciplined legions of enthusiastic Liberal voters, make him an unstoppable, unbeatable, invincible political juggernaut! His victory is inevitable. 

Stage 2. Gloating

Ha, ha, ha! The Conservatives are using negative ads to attack Justin Trudeau. Don’t they realize that since Trudeau is so adored, so worshipped, so beloved by the masses, such attacks will only make him even more powerful?  Oh well, once Prime Minister Stephen Harper realizes he has zero chance of stopping Trudeau’s soaring popularity he will do the right thing and resign any day.

Stage 3. Confusion

It’s despicable how Harper is using “fear tactics” to curry votes, such as Bill C 51, a law which, while popular, would undoubtedly destroy our civil rights and …wait, what? Trudeau supports Bill C 51? But he's the fun guy! OK forget about that Bill, let's talk about Trudeau’s politically savvy stance on the Niqab issue which will certainly guarantee him a overwhelming victory because only racist, bigoted, rednecks would support Harper’s position that such garments not be worn during citizenship ceremonies … what’s that? A poll shows nearly 90 percent of Canadians side with Harper?! Um … let’s talk about Mike Duffy.

Stage 4. Bargaining

You know what’s really awesome? Coalition governments. All the really cool countries in Europe have these, why not Canada? It’s time we put aside our boring, bland “British” system we’ve been using for the past 150 years or so and embrace the exciting world of politics Italian-style. It’d be fun! Or let’s try implementing other cool democratic reforms, such as mandatory voting or banning negative ads or Rep by Pop. Remember no idea to radically transform our democracy is too ridiculous or too strange, if it helps Trudeau achieve his destiny.

Stage 5. Acceptance

Canada has only one political leader tough enough and smart enough to defeat Harper in the next election: His name is Thomas Mulcair.

Me vs. The Digital Columnist

Sometimes I come across an opinion column about politics that’s so nonsensical, I feel compelled to write a response to it as soon as humanly possible.

But that’s pretty rare.

Usually what happens is I procrastinate until the urge to undertake the actual drudgery of composing articulate thoughts and writing them down slowly fades away.

Then I watch TV.

Yet, for some strange reason the passage of time did not dull my desire to offer a critique of a Bruce Anderson column which appeared in the Globe and Mail, way back at the end of January.

You’ve probably heard of Anderson; he’s a well-known pollster, he appears regularly on CBC's The National’s “At Issue” panel, and he is the Globe’s “digital columnist.”

At any rate, the first thing you need to know about Anderson’s column is that you can make anything sound cool and “cutting edge” simply by modifying it with the word “digital.”

“Hey Joe, hand me that digital monkey wrench” or “The floor looks much cleaner now that I'm using a digital mop.”

 See what I mean?

The second thing you need to know about Anderson’s column is that it passionately decries the nastiness of the Conservative Party, a nastiness which he argues stems from Prime Minister Stephen Harper getting “lousy advice” from the “cynical and jaded.”

This advice, wrote Anderson, has “coarsened our politics, driven away good potential candidates, and caused a steady decline in turnout at elections.”

 Sounds awful!

Although to be fair, Anderson actually offers zero proof that “coarsened” politics is driving away “good” potential candidates or that it’s causing a steady decline in voter turnout.

But let’s set aside that itty bitty objection.

What really struck me about Anderson’s arguments is that they come across as a tad simplistic, and by a “tad simplistic” I mean incredibly, insanely, five-year-old-child simplistic.

To show you what I mean, let’s take apart Anderson’s digital Globe column, digit by digit.

To prove his point about the coarseness of modern politics, Anderson offers us an anecdote from Question Period.

He notes that in answering a question from NDP leader Thomas Mulcair about Canada’s mission in Iraq, Harper said, “I know the opposition thinks it’s a terrible thing that we’re actually standing up to jihadists. I know they think it’s a terrible thing that some of these jihadists got killed when they fired on the Canadian military.”

This response, says Anderson, was “appalling” and “beneath the office of the Prime Minister.”

Then Anderson recounts about how, after dinging Mulcair, Harper tried to hit Liberal leader Justin Trudeau “below the belt”.

What was Harper’s underhanded blow?

Well, writes Anderson, while responding to a question about his proposed income splitting plan, Harper commented, “on the fact that Mr. Trudeau inherited money when his father passed away.”

Oh the horror! Poor Justin, can you imagine such a terrible … wait, really? That’s it? Harper just made an offhand comment about Justin being a rich kid.

Heck, my wife is tougher than that on me when I forget to bring out the garbage.

But Anderson was horrified.

As he put it, “It’s as though the Conservative Party considers receiving an inheritance some sort of character handicap, and that anyone on the receiving end of a bequest should just shut up and let others decide things?”

Now, I’m not privy to the Conservative Party’s communication strategy or anything, but I strongly suspect that Harper’s comments to Mulcair and Trudeau on that day in the House of Commons were more about tactics than about simple rudeness.

But before I get to that, let’s carry on with our examination.

After detailing the chamber of horrors that was Question Period, Anderson puts forward his reasons as to why we can’t “turn things around” and make our public discourse more respectable so that it’s less likely to make Justin Trudeau cry like a baby.

One “newish reason” says Anderson “is the bad chemistry that happens when you mix rabid partisanship and a social media platform like Twitter.”

To make his point, Anderson put its in bone-chilling terms:

But when it comes to politics, Twitter can also create some pretty nasty neighbourhoods. Places where the ultra-cynical come to spit and spew, often hiding behind fake names, making juvenile arguments, and indulging in pathetic name-calling. There are lots who hate Liberals, or New Democrats, and many who hate Conservatives. Some loathe the media.

If you wander into this neighbourhood, you’ll find a seething, stinking place. And it’s getting worse. For people who get up in the morning hoping to insult others, success is about shock value and provocation. Ignore them and they come back with a worse insult. Reveal annoyance and they’ll double down, overjoyed at the thought they’ve drawn blood.

Wow! For a guy who wants to upgrade the quality of debate in this country, Anderson sure knows how to pile up steaming heaps of derogatory rhetoric!

But did Anderson really think social media platforms would be a haven for legions of would be Aristotles and Voltaires? It’s the wild, wild west of commentary!

Still, Anderson does have a valid point. Twitter is a place where partisans go mainly to reinforce their own belief and to attack the other side.

But so what? How does the rabidly partisan nature of Twitter impact the greater political world and make it more difficult to “turn things around”?

Unfortunately, Anderson never backs up his proposition with any logical argument.

So I am forced to surmise that his argument goes something like this: political parties must cater and pander to their partisan bases, which thanks to the ungodly powers of social media are now made up of spitting and spewing mobs of wild-eyed, crazed, fanatics who demand blood!

If that’s true, then logic dictates that banning Twitter and YouTube, Facebook and Instagram would make our politics more civil, wouldn’t it?

Maybe.

But on the other hand, spitting and spewing mobs of wild-eyed, crazed fanatics existed long before anyone ever invented the Internet.

In the days of Ancient Rome they used graffiti to communicate, after the invention of the printing press they used pamphlets, books and newspapers; in the twentieth century they used radio and TV.

And yes, each form of communication listed above, you could argue, helped degrade political communication, making politics more of a rough and tumble business, full of scurrilous attacks, rude language and vicious invectives.

Perhaps then the only true way to create a purer more pristine political world, one that’s full of rainbows and lollipops and where all politicians act like Mother Teresa, is to ban not just social media but all forms of free communication.

They do this in other countries; I understand that politics in North Korea is extremely polite.

But now that I think about it, there might be a downside to living in polite countries that lack freedom.

So maybe allowing a little rude commentary is a small price to pay to live in a democracy.

As the great British Prime Minister Leo Durocher once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government … say it aint so Joe?”

Besides, Anderson’s “Blame it on Twitter” thesis is actually wrong because political parties do more than just communicate with their bases, they must also communicate in a way that wins votes from all those Canadians who don’t care about politics, or ideology or partisanship, which by the way is about 99 percent of the population.

So the partisan cesspool of Twitter is largely irrelevant to a political party’s overall communication strategy. Yes, they want to mobilize their bases, but they must do so in a way that allows them to win over non-aligned voters.

That means for political parties, it’s the wants and dreams and desires of the voting masses that matter.

The other reason Anderson puts forward as to why we can’t turn things around and make politics more of a genteel, courteous exercise is that Prime Minister Harper has consciously chosen a dark path.

He writes:

But as the politician with the biggest podium in the country, he (Harper) has a lot to do with setting the tone and the standard for political discourse. He can deliver an argument with style, wit, incisiveness and impact. But he also knows how to get the blood boiling among the angriest people in his party.

So “to be clear,” as the PM likes to say, it’s a choice.

Then Anderson helpfully offers this tactical advice:

“But what this Conservative Party needs to win re-election isn’t more evidence that it likes to travel on the low road. Or that this Prime Minister is capable of insults.”

So according to Anderson, Harper has a better chance of winning the next election if he sets a new tone, one that’s witty, stylish and positive, and one that didn’t pander to angry Conservatives.

An interesting hypothesis. But could travelling the high road really work for Harper?

Somehow I doubt it.

Remember the children’s fable where the lion decides to lay down with the lamb, and then the lamb hacks off the sleeping lion’s head off with a rusty butcher knife?

The moral from that story is clear: if Harper unilaterally goes positive, it doesn’t mean all his legions of enemies – opposition MPs, big union bosses, small union bosses, left wing media, environmental groups, feminists, Rick Mercer, the United Nations, pro-long form census advocates, the entire country of Russia – who up until now have been doing to Harper what kids at a birthday party do to an overstuffed piñata, would suddenly cease their attacks.

They’d more than likely continue to hammer away at Harper with even more reckless abandon.

In a sense then, Anderson is advising Harper to unilaterally disarm on the eve of battle.

OK, hold on, I am beginning to sound a little “jaded” and “cynical” here, and I certainly don’t want to offend Anderson’s delicate sensibilities, so in the interest of reasoned debate let’s take a step back.

Instead of arguing back and forth about tactics, let’s review Canadian political history and examine the style, wit and incisiveness of Canada’s most successful prime ministers.

Let’s see how many of them traveled the high road.

Here’s the list:

John A. MacDonald – Canada’s first prime minister and a Father of Confederation

·        Alcoholic

·        Possibly racist

·        Once, likely in an intoxicated state, threw up during a campaign speech.

William Lyon Mackenzie King – Canada’s longest serving Prime Minister

·        Talked to his dead mother

Louis St. Laurent  -- Who?

Pierre Trudeau – Legendary prime minister and subject of CBC bio pic

·        Gave “The finger” to Canadian citizens.

·        Once spoke words resembling “fuddle duddle” in House of Commons

·        Called backbench MPs “nobodies”

·        Desire to experiment with socialism flattened Alberta’s economy

·        Pirouetted behind the Queen

·        Invoked War Measure Act suspending the rights of every Canadian.

Jean Chretien – Won three majorities in a row, now considered Wise Elder Statesman

·        Throttled protester

·        Joked about pepper spraying protestors

·        Allowed staff to mock the religious beliefs of political rival

·        Referred to Albertans as a different “type”.

·        Government linked to scandals too numerous to mention

·        Subject of a book entitled The Friendly Dictatorship

·        Won an election by promising to scrap the GST (Ha, ha, ha.)

·        Regularly accused political opponents of secretly wanting to close orphanages, hospitals and abortion clinics, as part of a plan to impose an “American-style” right-wing, religious theocracy.

·        Engaged in vindictive feud with his own Finance Minister

Hmmm, maybe Harper isn’t all that bad, at least comparatively.

Now to be fair, we should also contrast the above list with a list of all those Canadian politicians who acted in a respectful manner.

Here’s that list:

1.      Stockwell Day – Devout nice guy and former Leader of the Canadian Alliance – (a party which no longer exists)

2.      Um, ….

So clearly, as the historical record makes clear, the road to political power is not paved with clever witticisms and stylish arguments.

If it was, the Harvard educated, successful author and all around intellectual, Michael Ingatieff would be our prime minister.

The fact is in political messaging, simplicity and directness work. If you try to get too complicated and clever and witty you only alienate voters.

So no one should be shocked or surprised that Harper is using simple and direct methods to define the Liberal and NDP leaders before they can define themselves.

When Harper went after Muclair in Question Period on the jihadism issue, he was defining the NDP leader as a guy who is soft on terrorism.

And when he made that crack about Trudeau’s inheritance, Harper was basically saying to Canadians, “Trudeau is a privileged rich kid, who can’t possibly understand the concerns and fears of average middle class Canadians.”

Anderson might find such a defining tactic as “coarse” and appalling and beneath the dignity of a prime minister; and he might believe it’s based on “lousy” advice, but all the same, it’s an extremely effective ploy, one that has worked on innumerable occasions in elections all over the globe.

One of those occasions was in 2011, when the Conservatives won a majority government after they successfully defined then Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff as an out of touch academic.

And if you think only nasty Conservatives use this approach, allow me to direct your attention to south of border where everybody’s favorite progressively sensitive politician, Barack “Hope and Change” Obama, used devastatingly effective attack ads in the 2012 presidential election to define his Republican opponent Mitt Romney as a cross between Thurston Howell III, Ebenezer Scrooge and Darth Vader.

Other examples: the British Columbia Liberals defined the NDP as Marxist radicals, the Alberta PCs defined Wild Rosers as Bible-thumping crazies, the Ontario Liberals (or more specifically their union allies) skewered the PCs as heartless, right-wing monsters.

These sorts of attacks work because unlike clever witticisms or intellectual arguments, they resonate on an emotional level and it’s our emotions, not our intellects, which motivate us to vote for a certain party.

What’s more, due to a quirk of human nature, negative emotions make a much greater impact on our minds than positive emotions. This is why traumatic events – such as visits to the dentist – stick in our memories for so long.

Keep in mind in too, Harper has all the warmth and cuddliness of Genghis Khan with a hangover, making it difficult if not impossible for him to campaign as Mr. Nice. (Anybody remember those horrendous TV ads where a smiling, sweater-wearing Harper tried to come across as some sort of Mr. Rogers figure?)

So the Conservative political equation is pretty straightforward. Since Harper can’t make himself more likable, his only option is to make Mulcair and especially Trudeau less likable.

And please, don’t tell me Trudeau’s Care Bear persona somehow makes him invincible to attack.

Even the Liberals don’t believe that.

I’m pretty sure, for instance, that it was fear of Conservative attack ads that caused Trudeau (who once believed we could solve the terrorist problem by inviting ISIS to sit around a campfire and sing kumbaya) to support the government’s controversial anti-terrorism bill, and to rethink his opposition to the military mission in Iraq.

The Liberals don’t want to see TV ads airing during the next election that feature a deep-voiced narrator saying something along the lines of: “Justin Trudeau opposed the war on ISIS, he opposed Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s anti-terrorism bill. He cares more about protecting the rights of terrorist scum than he does about protecting you. Vote for a strong and safe Canada! Vote Conservative.”

So yeah, just the fear of potential Tory TV attack ads pushed the Liberals to try change Trudeau’s image from adorable puppy to snarling Doberman Pinscher.

By the way, speaking of the Liberals, up until now their marketing plan was to avoid talking about issues and policies and platforms, hoping Canadians would vote for Trudeau solely based on his winning personality, charming smile and famous last name.

Some people (not me) might consider such an “idealess” strategy “cynical” and “jaded.”

Oh and I should note that if  Tory attacks on Trudeau do start to erode his support in the polls, the Liberals will drop their “Our leader is a boy scout” routine faster than you can say “drama teacher” and strike back with attacks of their own.

They’d have no choice; as one time manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, Winston Churchill, once said, “Nice guys who don’t respond in kind to effective TV attack ads finish last or else alligators eat them last.”

This is not to say, of course, that Harper’s aggressive communications approach doesn’t entail risks or that it’s guaranteed to work.

My only point is this: in the context of real world politics, as opposed to Anderson’s make believe world of fairies, unicorns and gumdrop lanes, Harper’s tough guy approach makes strategic sense.

Despite what Anderson writes, Harper is not attacking Trudeau and Mulcair because of the nastiness of social media or because he’s by nature a rude person or because of jaded cynical advisors. (OK they might be jaded and cynical but that’s beside the point.)

Harper has simply adopted a strategy that offers his party its best chance of winning.

To paraphrase a guy who was paraphrasing the Bible, election victories don’t always go the side with the best attacks, but that’s the way to bet.

At any rate, that’s my “digital” opinion.

The Trudeau Illusion

While strolling down a downtown street festival recently I spied a little sign, taped to a Liberal Party recruiting booth and it immediately caught my attention.

It read: “Enter to win a hat signed by Justin Trudeau.”

Why, I wondered, would anybody consider a hat signed by a politician to be a prize?  

Then I remembered, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is no ordinary politician, he’s much more important than that – he’s a celebrity!

He has a famous, former prime minster father; he has matinee idol good looks; he once pummeled a Conservative Senator in a boxing match, all of which makes him one part handsome prince; one part pop star; one part action hero.

This is why much of the media has bestowed upon Trudeau the kind of fawning coverage usually reserved for visiting royalty (such as Barack Obama) or for Rock stars promoting some trendy “celebrity-backed” plan, usually involving creative Twitter #hashtags, to end African poverty.

And make no mistake, celebrity-hood matters politically because in our modern, hi-tech, secular society, celebrities are the closest thing we have left to gods.

We see celebrities as heroic, glamorous, adventurous, beautiful, rich, privileged -- everything we aspire to be.

So we idolize them.

We buy the hemorrhoid products celebrities endorse; we dress (or in some cases undress) like them; we soak up their every word when they lecture us on the finer points of our national energy policy.

We even try to connect to them on some supernatural level by owning items they may have touched or signed, just as our ancestors in medieval times sought out holy relics, which is why people might covet an autographed Trudeau hat.

Part of this worshipping process includes transforming our celebrities into idealized versions of humanity.

After all, what’s the point of paying homage to a regular schmuck?

So it is that Trudeau’s celebrity status also confers upon him the aura of a perfect politician, a leader who is imbued with positivity and idealism, whose motives are completely pure, whose aims are utterly noble, and whose hair has achieved a divine level of flawlessness.

That’s why, unlike regular, run-of-the-mill, non-celebrity politicians, Trudeau doesn’t need policies or platforms or, you know, anything actually resembling a real idea.

Indeed, the implied Liberal “marketing” message is that Trudeau, through a combination of celebrity superpowers and Chinese-communist-style efficiency, will painlessly and effortlessly solve all our problems.

The budget will balance itself; Alberta will develop oil sands in a way that makes the air smell like roses; and once Trudeau discovers the “root causes” of evil, Vladimir Putin and ISIS will turn away from aggression and dedicate themselves to helping homeless puppies.

Who can compete with a narrative like that?  No wonder Trudeau is soaring in the polls.

Of course, somewhere deep in our hearts, we all realize the Trudeau story is really just a nice fairy tale, just as we know Kermit the Frog is really just a piece of felt with buttons for eyes.

But when it comes to Kermit and Justin we want to suspend reality.

The Trudeau fairy tale is one we especially want to believe. We want to believe there’s a leader out there who can magically make the country a better place, who can unite us all regardless of race, region or hockey affiliation, who can rise above partisan political bickering, who will let us have our cake and eat it too.

We don’t want to pull back the curtain and see Trudeau for what he really is: a likable but inexperienced, gaffe-prone politician who is probably incapable of uttering anything beyond carefully rehearsed platitudes.

That would force us to face the ugly truth: that no matter who is prime minister, no matter which party is in charge, it won't change the basic reality that politics is a messy, tough, cynical, scandal-prone business that offers no clear cut or easy answers.

Who wants to contemplate that harshness when it’s so much easier, so much more satisfying to believe in Trudeau’s rainbows and lollipops agenda?

As Oscar Wilde put it, “illusion is the first of all pleasures.”

Consequently, because it gives us pleasure, Trudeau remains firmly atop his celebrity pedestal, meaning he has a good chance of becoming our next prime minister.

Then, I guess, we will see what happens when illusion confronts reality.

(Spoiler alert: illusion usually doesn’t do so well.)

Review: Liberal Ad Not a Wynne

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne says she doesn't like political attack ads, which is why, I suppose, her own political attack ad is so terrible.

In fact, her ad is almost a textbook case of what not to do.

Check it out:




So the spot starts off with Wynne ambling along a bland suburban street explaining why she hates negative ads, which as a viewer sets me up to think she is going to spend the next 30 seconds or so explaining her positive vision for Ontario. But no! Instead, almost in mid-sentence, she goes from saying she hates attack ads to launching an attack of her own against PC leader Tim Hudak. That's a mistake because shifting gears and changing the tone of a message in such an abrupt way can jar a viewer and that's not a good thing. In this case, Wynne risks losing her audience in the crucial first seconds of the ad.

Then, after that odd start, Wynne proceeds to list a litany of "facts", which are supposed to convince voters that Hudak is evil incarnate: he hates labour; he wants to destroy jobs, he wants to eradicate youth employment; he wants to drive down wages; he wantzzzzzzzzzz.

Oops, sorry...  for a second there I dozed off.

But in my defence, this ad's style is conducive to napping. Wynne not only delivers her lines in a dull, boring monotone voice, but her list of Hudak misdeeds seems to go on forever. It's like Lord of the Rings! The average viewer is going to quickly lose interest. For a political spot, anything longer than 30 seconds is too long. (Even 30 seconds is a bit long.)

To be effective, to keep a viewer's attention, a video has to make its points briefly and with some sort of dramatic punch. Equally important, a good spot includes interesting visuals that reinforce the message. Even writing out key words on the screen helps. Just having one shot of a ranting Wynne strolling down a street doesn't cut it.

The biggest problem with this ad, however, is that Wynne herself is doing the attack. That's a major no no. Why? Well, going "negative" has a stigma attached to it, which is why the candidate must always be perceived as being all about rainbows and lollipops. If there's vicious knife work to be done, leave that to your allies in the media or to PR hacks or (most ideally) to Third Parties.

The more distance between negativity and the candidate, the better.

Mind you, what's truly troublesome about this ad is how much time it probably took to produce. I mean, there's always something that will spoil a shot when taping in the great outdoors: a car horn tooting, a dog barking, a plane flying overhead, kids making faces in the background. Plus, I'm sure Wynne, not being a professional actor, flubbed her lines more than once. All that translates into a lot of takes. That means a lot of time. Surely the Premier could have allotted that precious time for more useful government purposes, such as deleting emails. (Note to Liberal legal department: that's just a joke, so please don't sue me!)

A look at Quebec Politics

My friend, Mat Vaillancourt, asked me to post his reflections on my blog, so I did.

Check it out:

Five Lessons from the Quebec provincial election

1) Campaigns matters
Pauline Marois did badly in places where she did not campaign like the Îles-de-la-Madeleine and the Abitibi region.

Otherwise, the CAQ leader won seats where he met people: shopping malls, at sugar shacks, at community centres. The CAQ seemed to have done well with people who voted the same day.


2)Trying to win everyone at the same time means pleasing no one at the end
The PQ is traditionally a centre-left nationalist party changed course in 2013 and started pushing a more ethnic nationalist platform, even more so than during earlier PQ stints in government.

The strategy behind this change was probably to win some regions in Quebec which are quite conservative.

Then came the billionaire Pierre-Karl Péladeau who is not seen as a big friend of the labour unions which were traditionally close to the PQ. Many labour unions were not keen on supporting the PQ this time because of Péladeau constituency and the charter of values.

At the end, this strategy backfired completely as the PQ lost on both sides. They did badly among what they already had and they did not win anything else even in areas where the PQ invested a lot of money in pork barreling projects. The party also had their worse score ever in Montreal being close to be a third party there.

3)The cool factor:
If you want to be PM or premier and you have a good lead at the polls, being cool, calm and seeming to be in charge of the situation could be a good strategy to win.

Philippe Couillard and Stephen Harper had the same strategy especially in debates. In both cases, it worked.


4)You have nothing to lose? Go for it.
If you are third and have nothing to lose, being on the attack could be a good strategy. Being low in the polls at the start of the campaign and having nothing to lose, François Legault had this strategy and it worked out really well for him to win more seats.

Even if he lost some seats in the Quebec City area to the Liberals perhaps because of anti-PQ tactical voting, he was able to win quite a few seats in the Montreal suburban areas because of the fall of the PQ and because he was able to be seen as the alternative to both the Liberals and the PQ especially in suburban and exurban areas.

5)Being seen as the anti-development party could hurt you.
The PQ had some major losses in Northern Quebec, especially in areas where mining is a major part of the economy.

Like for the BCNDP in the last provincial BC election, the PQ being seen as the anti-development party and the mine closings did not help at all to keep these seats. The PQ had a unpredictable policy on mines, which made Quebec a place which scared the mining companies to invest.

Ungava, the nothermost seat in the Quebec National Assembly was won for the Liberal for the first time ever since its creation in 1981.

The PQ also finished third in Nicolet-Bécancour, where closing the single biggest employer in the region (the nuclear power plant) the first day in power did not helpl the PQ in a riding which is traditionally péquiste and very rural.

Are these five rules only applicable in Quebec? Perhaps. But there is no doubt that some of these rules are also applying to other places in Canada and elsewhere in the western world.

Revealed: Table of Contents for Trudeau's memoirs!

Don’t ask how, but I managed to get my hands on the Table of Contents for  Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s soon to be published memoirs tentatively entitled, Fifty Shades of Yay!

If the chapter titles are anything to go by, it promises to be a fascinating opus. Take a look:

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. The Kindergarten Years

Chapter 2. What I learned from zany old Uncle Fidel

Chapter 3. Why I love Canada to my very bones, to the core of my molecules, to the roots of my incredibly thick hair.

Chapter 4. Discovering the Middle Class by observing it through the window of my dad’s limousine.

Chapter 5. Albertans running Ottawa! Not in my Canada.

Chapter 6.  Why “Open” Nominations are good for democracy

Chapter 7.  Why my power to arbitrarily veto Liberal candidates is good for democracy.

Chapter 8.Communist China: Admirable paradise of efficient state power.

Chapter 9. My take on foreign policy: Putin and a Ukrainian go into a bar…

Chapter 10.  The budget will balance itself and other economic theories I’ve devised while smoking pot.

Chapter 11.  Harper’s a big Meanie

Looks great, right? I suspect more chapters might emerge between now and the book's publication. Stay tuned.

Oh no! Canadian Democracy is Doomed!

Our democracy is doomed!

For all the gory details of its demise, check out this column by the Toronto Star’s Chantal Hebert.

She explains how the Conservative government, in its “Fair Elections Act”, plans to – are you ready for this? -- forbid Elections Canada from launching “outreach campaigns”.

Imagine that! No more Elections Canada outreach campaigns!!

It’s outrageous! It’s scary! It’s Orwellian! (Note: George Orwell was a noted political writer who penned the classic anti-totalitarian novel about a wild college fraternity called Animal Farm House.)

If this news doesn't terrify you, it must be because you don't know Elections Canada’s outreach campaign is a campaign whereby Elections Canada tries to “reach” “out” and motivate people to vote.

This is similar to other government motivational campaigns such as its stop smoking campaign, its stop taking drugs campaign, its do more exercise campaign, its recycle your garbage campaign, and its pay more attention to government motivational ad campaigns campaign.

Technically, such government campaigning is known as “nagging.”

At any rate, an important part of that Elections Canada “outreach” campaign is its effort to convince young people that voting is cool and hip.

Now you might be thinking there’s no way middle-aged Elections Canada bureaucrats, whose idea of fun is coming up with “spoiled” ballot jokes, could ever be “groovy” enough to effectively reach out to today’s youth.

Well, if you watch this youth “outreach” ad you’ll see exactly how much Elections Canada is “with it.”

Yes, sir, with this ad airing on TV, it’s no wonder young people vote by the dozens.

Although admittedly some studies suggest that when young people are exposed to these hip Elections Canada ads, many of them not only don’t vote, they actually renounce the very concept of democracy.

But whether or not these ads work really isn’t the point.

The point is without the government telling them what to do at election time, an entire generation of young Canadians will lapse into an X-Box induced apathetic coma.

That means only non-cool old people will vote!

But wait, there’s more bad news.

As we all know, if young people don’t vote in large enough numbers, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau might (gasp) lose the next election.

And Hebert fears despite his Teenbeat model looks, despite his promise to legalize marijuana, despite his idealistic persona and despite his party’s sophisticated GOTV measures, without Election Canada ads to energize apathetic young  people, Trudeau won’t be able mobilize his Liberal Youth Legions.

In other words, stopping Elections Canada from advertising to help Trudeau probably violates the British North America Act, because surely the Fathers of Confederation never meant for us to have non-Liberal government!

So what can we do to protect our democratic values from this vicious assault?

Well, there’s only one thing we can do: wait for guidance from a hip and cool government ad.

Reviewing the Year in Politics (Sort of)

Whenever a New Year approaches, I like to take my eyes off the road ahead and stare intently for a long period of time at the rear view mirror of history.

Yes, metaphorically-speaking, it’s reckless driving, but it’s also the only way to gather the facts needed for my annual “Year in Review” column, which highlights the key political events of the past twelve months.

And this year’s review of 2013 is chock-full of exciting highlights. Check it out:

(Please note: Nothing you read from here on is meant to be taken seriously and is for entertainment purposes only.)

January:
* Idle No More movement leader, Chief Theresa Spence, threatens to “bring Canada’s economy down to its knees.” NDP leader Thomas Mulcair immediately objects saying: “Hey, bringing the economy down to its knees is my job!”

* NDP says a "bare” majority enough for Quebec to separate from Canada; nudists rejoice.

February:
* Taking a cue from the Idle No More movement, the groundhog refuses to look for his shadow unless the Governor-General is present.

* The federal Liberals face lawsuits when their “imaginative” TV leadership debate format bores several viewers to death.

March:
* During a speech before the House of Commons, Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty admits the Conservative government’s entire budgetary plan consists of “putting up a bunch of Economic Action Plan billboards all over the place.”

April
* Justin Trudeau is elected leader of the Liberal Party, finishing ahead of Liberal MP Joyce Murray who wanted to co-operate with the NDP, proving once again that in politics having no ideas is much better than having bad ideas.

* The NDP holds a policy convention at which it drops the word “socialism” from its constitution and replaces it with the Canadian equivalent of socialism: “Economic Action Planning.”

May
* Toronto Mayor Rob Ford starts clever PR campaign, which successfully puts his city on the map.

* The Conservative Party, which had already adopted Liberal-style economic policies, decides to also adopt Liberal-style scandals. Enter Senator Mike Duffy.

June
* Prime Minister Harper leaves for Europe saying his visit will result in several key photo opportunities.

* Worried about its worsening image the Senate takes a pre-emptive step: it passes a resolution to abolish the NDP.

* Controversy erupts when it’s learned Liberal leader Trudeau received pay for speaking at charity events, leading many Canadians to voice a key question: why in the world would anyone pay money to hear a politician speak?

July
* Prime Minister Harper denounces those who say he is making government too partisan. Later that day Canada Day is officially renamed “Harper Day.”

* The media becomes completely obsessed with the "royal child," or as he’s otherwise known, Justin Trudeau.

August

* Absolutely nothing happens.

September
* After watching Russian President Vladimir Putin out maneuver President Barack Obama over the Syrian chemical weapon crisis, Prime Minister Harper asks Putin to negotiate the Keystone pipeline deal.

October
* Senator Mike Duffy stuns the country when he reveals that he taped the infamous Mayor Rob Ford “crack video.”

November
* The RCMP says it will investigate the Prime Minister’s former Chief of Staff for possible illegal activity, causing Harper to boast that his “law and order agenda is clearly working.”

December
* Conservative MP Michael Chong introduces a Bill to give backbench MPs more power; as a reward, he is quickly named Canada’s ambassador to Siberia.

So as you can see, 2013 was an extremely interesting year. And 2014 promises to provide us more of the same.

Oh well, try and have a Happy New Year anyway.

(This article originally appeared in the Hill Times.)

Tory fundraising Pitch Suffers from Blandness

Given that for the past ten years or so, the Conservative Party has been something of a fundraising juggernaut, I’m hesitant to criticize their methods.

Clearly, whatever they are doing is working.

Yet, a recent Tory fundraising appeal, which somehow made its way into my email inbox, leaves me cold. (Mind you, it’s possible my coldness might be due to the wind chill.)

At any rate, here’s the Conservative missive:

Friend,

The success of our Party over the last 10 years has been a result of our ability to consistently raise more money than our opposition.  And as one of our key supporters you've been a critical part of that success.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have made fundraising their top priority, and they are working hard to close the gap.

We cannot let that happen.

Our Party can only win the next election if we keep our fundraising advantage and the 2015 election is right around the corner. If we want to win, we need to get ready now.

That's why we are launching the Seize the Moment campaign to raise $2 million by the end of the year.

This is an ambitious goal for our Party, but I know that you, my fellow members, donors and supporters will stand with us. I am asking you today – will you donate $5 or whatever you can afford today to help us reach our $2 million goal?

Make your $5 gift today and help us Seize the Moment – we're counting on you.

Sincerely,

John Walsh

President, Conservative Party of Canada

So what’s wrong with this message?

Plenty, if you ask me. (Which admittedly, nobody did.)

In my mind, a successful fundraising letter has to make some sort of emotional connection with the donor while at the same time creating a sense of urgency.

This appeal does neither.

Instead, the Tories offer what I’d call a bland “structural” pitch, i.e. they are essentially saying give us money because: a) you are a Conservative, and b) we are the Conservative Party.

The only hook beyond that basic message is: “We can’t let the other team out fundraise us”.

That’s not exactly a rallying cry to political activists, who are seldom motivated by cold financial calculations and who don’t necessarily see politics as a fundraising competition.

They donate money because they want to advance an ideological agenda or because they want to defend their values or more bluntly they do it for primal emotional reasons: they are afraid, or angry or hopeful.

Asking them to “Seize the moment” so that the Tory balance sheet looks good might motivate accountants, but it will likely underwhelm a large chunk of the donor base.

Plus there has to be a sense that their support is needed right away, that they can’t put off signing that cheque or making that online donation.

But this Tory pitch is about amassing money in a bank vault for the 2015 election, which is more than a year off and I’m sorry that’s not “right around the corner.”

A better approach for the Tories would have been to say something like this:

Friend:

As you know the left wing media has been unfairly attacking our party and our leader.

What’s more the Liberal Party has been inundating the TV airwaves with advertisements, promoting their new leader Justin Trudeau.

We need to fight back! We need to get our message out so that Canadians know what’s at stake.

That’s why our party has been running a series of our own TV ads to warn Canadians that Trudeau is “in over his head,” that he lacks the experience and expertise it will take to manage Canada’s economy.

We think our ads will work but they cost a lot of money.

In fact, the bills are landing on my desk right now.

I am hoping that I can count on your generous financial support so that we can pay for these ads and continue to stand up against those who want bigger government and higher taxes.

Only the Conservatives can provide the good government you deserve and Canada needs.

Please make a donation today.

OK that’s just a rough draft, but you get the idea.

To energize donors you need a little more punch, you need to give them something beyond an abstract far off goal.

All that said, this message will still garner the Tories lots of dough.

But they are also likely leaving a lot of money on the table.

Is Santa a Tory?

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau's recent comment about Santa Claus being a Canadian reminded me of a column I wrote a few years ago, concerning a David Suzuki fundraising campaign that exploited Saint Nick.

So given its sudden relevance and its seasonal theme, I thought I'd reproduce it below:

Santa vs Suzuki

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 inWashington 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)

Why I'm Not Excited about the Reform Act

Solon’s laws for Athens, the Magna Carta, the Emancipation Proclamation, all key milestones in the history of democracy which pale into insignificance when compared to Conservative MP Michael Chong’s Great Reform Act of 2013.

Or so says the hype emanating from that alternate reality dimension known as the “Ottawa Bubble”.

Ottawa Bubblonians -- columnists, pundits, editorial writers  -- are gleefully extolling Chong’s bill -- which would “empower” backbench MPs by, among other things, making it easier for them to dispatch their leaders -- because they love the idea of returning to a purer 19^th century-style British parliamentary democracy.

Ha just kidding!

Of course, they really love this Bill for a more basic reason: they believe it’s embarrassing to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

So what do I think about Chong’s bill?

Well, even though I love 19^th century political conventions as much as the next guy, I really can’t work up too much excitement about a bill that simply shifts the balance of power on Parliament Hill.

By the way, I suspect it’s the same for most non-Ottawa Bubblonian Canadians.

I doubt very much, for instance, that people get up in the morning saying, “Forget about the economy and the threat of nuclear war, if only we could restore our ancient Westminster British Parliamentary traditions so that my MP could have more power.”

Not that such indifference matters to the Ottawa Bubblonians who would argue that if Canadians only stopped watching mindless TV and spent more time reading Hansard, they would also love Chong’s bill because it would loosen the iron grip of party leaders on their MPs and thus usher in a Golden Age of Good Government.

And even if it doesn’t usher in a Golden Age, Chong’s Bill might at least encourage more MPs to openly defy their leaders and speak their mind, which would undeniably strengthen the Parliamentary Press Gallery’s democratic right to write more juicy and gossipy stories.   

Yet, even those powerful arguments don’t move me.

For one thing, I doubt Chong’s Bill, even if passed without amendments, would do much in practical terms to weaken party leaders. After all, it was more than 40 years ago that then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau mocked backbench MPs as nobodies and ever since then political power has been inexorably centralized in the leader’s office.

And I’m sorry, but one parliamentary bill isn’t going to reverse that flow of power, the parliamentary toothpaste is out of the tube -- like it or not, for a whole bunch of reasons, our system has evolved so that party leaders are the undisputed “Kings of the Hill.”

But even if the pro-Reform Act enthusiasts are correct, even if this bill would empower MPs and reduce the leader’s clout, I’d still ask that most important of all questions:  “So what?”

Why should anybody who lives outside the Ottawa Bubble really care if the power dynamic on Parliament Hill has been altered?

Certainly, Chong’s proposed changes won’t make our system any more democratic, unless you call giving a small cabal of disgruntled MPs the power to “fire” a prime minister -- who was elected to the job by millions of people -- democratic.

(OK, I realize Canadians don’t directly elect the prime minister, but let’s be honest, when most people vote it’s usually not the local guy they are thinking about when they write down their X on the ballot. They are really voting for the party leader they like best.)

At the very least, allowing a small group of MPs to undo a democratic decision is an idea that runs counter to the Reformist-populist ideal of devolving power to the grassroots.

Traditionalists, of course, might contend that making MPs more powerful is actually good for democracy because it means they will act as a bulwark against tyranny.

The idea is that if some future prime minister starts getting all Julius Ceasary, the Reform Act will give MPs the power to grab metaphorical daggers so they can quickly and efficiently strike a blow for liberty.

And that’s a great argument, except that it overlooks one key fact: MPs are first and foremost politicians, which is to say they are usually guided by their own political self-interest, meaning the only time they will go all “Ides of March” on a leader will be when they reckon he or she has become an electoral liability and thus a threat to their own future.

To put it another way, when MPs decide whether or not to depose their leader, things like principles and democracy and liberty, will be less important to their calculations than the most recent polling numbers. Indeed, it’s possible we could see a prime minister deposed simply because he or she is enacting necessary but unpopular measures.

So when you boil it down to its basics, all Chong’s Bill will do is make it easier for jittery MPs to save their own electoral skins.

To that I say, “Big whooping deal!”

As far as I’m concerned, there’s only one meaningful way to reform government power – and that’s to reduce it

Asking me to get excited about the Reform Act is like asking a deer to get excited because a pack of wolves has come up with an easier way to replace its dominant male..

Gerry's Winner and Loser of the Week

Winner -  John F. Kennedy

Even though Kennedy was assassinated 50 years ago, his almost mystical status as a legendary leader continues to survive, as evidenced by the massive coverage networks both in Canada and in the United States dedicated to commemorating the anniversary of his untimely death. Mind you, perhaps as the boomer generation fades away, so too will Kennedy's aura.


Loser  - Prime Minister Stephen Harper

For a while there it looked like the Senate scandal, which had been bubbling away for 6 months or so, was starting to subside.  Even the scandal hungry media began to focus on more important issues, such as Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's sex life. Then the RCMP released a "bombshell"  (the media's favorite word when discussing the Senate scandal) of an affidavit that put the whole sordid mess back on the front pages. Once again, the Prime Minister had to deny, deny, deny. And as they say in the communications business, when your denying, you're dying.

Gerry's Winner and Loser of the Week

Winner -- The Conservative Party

Imagine this: An entire week went by with no real mention of Mike Duffy or Pamela Wallin or Senate scandals! This gave the Conservative government a chance to unveil its "Economic Update" which was packed full with good news items -- budget soon to be balanced, tax cuts on the horizon, strong economy. The Tories, in other words, were back on message.


Loser -- Toronto Mayor Rob Ford

This is the third time in a row Ford has claimed the "loser of the week" title. I might have to create a special category just for him! At any rate, this past week Ford once again made international headlines for all the wrong reasons when allegations surfaced connecting the Mayor to prostitutes and drunk driving. In response Ford used language cruder than anything you'd ever hear on HBO comedy specials. Later, the Toronto City Council stripped Ford of some of his mayoralty  powers. Surely the Mayor (and I know this is tempting fate) has officially hit rock bottom.

Gerry's Winner and Loser of the Week

Winner: The Guys Who Write Conservative Attack Ads

With his idiotic comment about admiring the efficiency of China's communist dictatorship, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has provided Conservatives with enough fodder for their next ten TV attack ads, not to mention a few fundraising letters.  Indeed, his odd view on China only reinforces the ongoing Conservative narrative that Trudeau is "In over his head." Good job Justin!

Loser: Toronto Mayor Rob Ford

Earlier this week, after months of denying it, Mayor Ford admitted to smoking crack cocaine, probably while in a "drunken stupor."  The ensuing media feeding frenzy was not a pretty sight. In fact, watching the Ford saga unfold is like watching an animal get tortured. This has now gone beyond communication crisis or scandal, we are now watching a human being facing serious problems implode in a bizarre real time tragic soap opera. For the sake of his health, I hope Ford gets the help he needs and gets it soon.

Deconstructing Trudeau's China "Joke"

American writer E. B. White once said, “explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process.”

Maybe that's why I can't get anyone to explain to me the humour of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau's so called "joke" about admiring the efficiency of communist China -- no one wants to kill it. 

But I'm a little more callous so I've decided to dissect this joke myself, just so I can find out what makes this Trudeau knee slapper supposedly funny. 

Call me overly curious, but I really want to know why so many media types believe Trudeau's comment about expressing admiration for a brutal dictatorship was meant to be hilariously comical.

To be honest, I just don't see it and believe me, I want in on the joke because laughing is fun!

Now before I pick up my scalpel (don't worry since I'm cutting into a joke it's a just wacky clown scalpel) let's give a little background to the story.

Earlier this week, Trudeau was speaking about how much he loved the "middle class" to a group of upper class Toronto women.

At one point during the proceedings this question was asked: “Besides Canada, which nation’s administration do you most admire, and why?”

That question triggered the "joke" Trudeau's apologists assure us was intended to be a side-splitting zinger.

Here's what he said:

"You know, there’s a level of of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say ‘we need to go green fastest…we need to start investing in solar.’ I mean there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted that I find quite interesting..

OK, let's get to the gory part and start slicing this quip into separate pieces to see what makes it tick.

Here again is the first line: "You know, there's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say `we need to go green fastest ... we need to start investing in solar"

So you laughing yet? 

Me neither. Nothing in this statement is even remotely funny. All it is is a guy talking about how dictators have an easier time of getting stuff done. And they do. That's because they don't have to worry about picky little things like democracy or human rights or the rule of law. Anyway, it's odd that a party leader would say something like that, but jocular? Sorry, it doesn't even make me giggle. (Mind you, I do concede the idea of investing in solar power is somewhat amusing.)

So let's move on the last line, which, since the first line was so dull, must contain the full power of Trudeau's whimsy: "I mean there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted that I find quite interesting."

Ha, ha, ha, that's hilarious ...wait ...no it's actually just confusing. 

Help me out here, what does Trudeau mean with this statement? Is he saying Harper wants dictatorial power like they have in China? I guess so, but if that's the joke, Trudeau's previous line makes no sense. I mean, he just got done saying he admired China's system, so where's the punchline in saying Harper might admire it too? 

I'm no (old guy alert) Bob Hope, but shouldn't the joke have gone a little something like this: 

"China's regime is brutal, repressive and anti-democratic, it reminds me a lot of the Harper government!"

OK so that's not exactly comedy gold, but at least it has a logical construction: a set up line and a pay off punchline, which is more than you can say for Trudeau's comment.

In fact, my analysis seems to prove that Trudeau's joke doesn't seem to be a joke at all.

And to be fair, it's the media, not Trudeau, which is using  the "It's just a joke defence"  which suggests the Liberal leader really does admire the Chinese dictatorship.

To me that's funny, but not ha ha funny.