Ontario election prediction and analysis

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

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

Yup, the result will be a slim Liberal majority.

Why this result?

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

Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind of ironic, isn’t it?

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

Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives

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

Poll after poll indicated Ontarians wanted change.

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

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

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

What happened?

Well first off leadership matters.

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

Now don’t get me wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that’s fine.

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

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

What should the PCs have done?

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

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

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

  

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

In politics you either define or you are defined.

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

They needed to hit McGuinty and hit him hard.

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

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

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

 Andrea Howath and the NDP

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

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

And it will likely pay dividends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*********** 

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

Liberal NDP Merger Doesn’t Add Up

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

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

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

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

Now on the surface such an argument does make sense.

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

However this is where political math comes in.

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

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

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

Why is this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s true.

Back in the days when we worked together at the National Citizens Coalition he explained to me he would like to see Canada evolve into a two party system, like they have in the United States, a system that pitted a right wing party against a left wing  party.

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

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

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

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

Liberals + NDP = Happy Stephen Harper.


(This originally appeared in the Ottawa Hill Times.)

Beware Public Polls

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

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

Now don’t get me wrong.

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

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

And that’s a crucial difference.

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

What am I talking about?

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

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

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

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

Mr. Smith: I always buy Crest toothpaste.

Pollster: Why?

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

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

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

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

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

Otherwise, a poll can be deceiving.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But does this poll reflect reality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative Fundraisers Might be Nervous

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

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

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

After all, nothing hurts political fundraising more than success.

That might sound strange, but it’s true.

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

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

The Conservatives always understood this dynamic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But now the political dynamics are different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other danger the Tories face is disillusionment.

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

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

However, that excuse is now gone.

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

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

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

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

Can they accomplish this?

Absolutely, they can.

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

I am talking about public sector unions.

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

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

The Tories should pounce on this news for fundraising purposes.

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

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

Tories and Liberals Playing a Dangerous Game

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

It all started with a Liberal trap.

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

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

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

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

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

And this is where the trap comes in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But is it?

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

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

Why is this?

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

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

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

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

That’s a vote getter.

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

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

The Problem with YouTube

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

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

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

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

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

What do I mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now don’t get me wrong.

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

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

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

Don't blame democracy

Dear Sir/Madam:

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

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

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

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

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

In politics vagueness works

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

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

But believe me, it happens all the time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds pretty scary doesn’t it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It contained a detailed plan for Canada and conventional political wisdom suggests it played a major role in helping the Liberals win a massive victory.

But did it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, I know all this sounds cynical.

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

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

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

The Romans, like us, had a Senate.

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

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

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

The Canadian Senate is one such institution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But does anybody really care about changing the Senate?

Certainly, people cared about 25 years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short, they needed an effective voice in Ottawa.

But things are different now in 2011.

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

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

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

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

None of this would surprise the Romans.

Voters tuning out politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, some people do care about politics.

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

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

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

They are informed and enthusiastic voters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for ethics being a winning political issue!

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

Obviously, they didn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

Harper takes principled stand on Israel

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

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

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

OK that might sound strange, but let me explain.

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

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

From 1998 to 2001, Harper was president of the NCC, which at the time was Canada's leading conservative advocacy group and I was his vice president.

And during his stint at the NCC's helm, Harper was a principled small "c"conservative who vigorously urged politicians to balance budgets, cut spending and to generally make government smaller.

Since becoming Prime Minister, however, Harper has largely turned his back on the principles of fiscal conservatism he once passionately espoused.

Rather than making government smaller, he has made it bigger; rather than cutting back on spending he has plunged the country into a sea of red ink.

This has seriously disappointed me and many other fiscal conservatives who were hoping Harper would implement a true small government agenda.

But despite my disappointment, a part of me doesn't want to believe my old comrade has completely forsaken his values.

That's why I often find myself striving to find evidence that the Harper I once worked with still exists, that his soul still contains some glimmer of the principled NCC president.

His stance on Israel is just such a glimmer.

Now please understand the NCC under Harper did not take any public stances on Israel. We were concerned mainly with domestic policies and issues.

But he and I had many conversations about Mideast politics and his view was
clear: he believed Canada must remain loyal and true to Israel.

He believed this not out of any religious conviction, but because he said Israel was the only country in the Mideast that shared our democratic traditions and values.

And so he was, as he once put it to me, "extremely pro-Israel".

And today, he is following through on his belief.

Canada is now widely considered Israel's "best friend" because as Harper himself put it, "those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are in the longer term a threat to all of us."

Now don't get me wrong.

I am not naïve enough to believe that there isn't some cynical political calculation that's also involved when it comes to Harper's relationship to Israel.

After all, the Jewish state is no ordinary country.

By standing firmly behind Israel the Conservatives can attract Canadian Jewish votes; they can appease their evangelical Christian base (which is vehemently pro-Israel) and as a bonus, it's also a policy that's likely popular with mainstream voters.

In a world that's teeming with hostile dictators and fanatical enemies, Canadians probably have strong sympathy these days for a fellow democracy that's in the front-line in the battle against terrorism.

This is a case for the Prime Minister, in other words, where good policy, good politics and personal principle intersect.

And principle and personal conviction are traits we need more of in Canadian politics.

Now if only Harper would go back to supporting the principle of smaller government.

The wisest man I ever knew

One of the wisest men I ever knew never graduated from high school.

He was a painter – and I don’t mean one of those artsy guys who get government grants to draw triangles.

I mean he was a tradesman, a man who worked hard his whole life painting homes and schools and factories.

He used colour to make the world a little more beautiful one brush stroke at a time.

And all the painting and scaffold building and climbing that went with the job, also made him strong.

In his older years, he would take great delight in challenging “young punks”, as he called them, to arm wrestling matches.

He won easily every time.

So why do I say he was wise?

Because he taught me a lot about what was important in life.

For one thing, when I was a teenager he taught me about the importance of education. He did this by getting me a summer job in factory that was so dark, so unbearably hot, so noisy and dirty I figured it was built from blueprints provided by Satan.

When I complained about the conditions, he said, “Well if you don’t want to work in a place like this for the rest of your life, stay in school!”

It was good advice.

He also taught me about the importance of loyalty.

A die-hard Detroit Red Wings fan, he stuck by his team even during the long drought of the 60s, 70s and 80s, decades during which the team was about as successful as a Michael Moore diet plan.

Yet, loyalty to his country superseded all else.

When the Red Wings finally won a Stanley Cup in 1997, their first in 42 years, I thought he would be deliriously happy.

But he wasn’t.

When I asked him why he wasn’t celebrating Detroit winning the Cup, he replied with an answer that would have made Don Cherry proud: “The Red Wings have too many God damned Russians on the team.”

Ironically, one thing this wise man never taught me was how to paint.

And that’s just as well because it meant I could always turn to him when I needed some painting done.

Not that I ever had to ask.

Whenever I moved into a new apartment or house, he would always show up on my doorstep, a brush in one hand, a can of paint in the other.

Of course, like any craftsman, he never tolerated amateurs messing up his work.

And so one time when my wife and I picked up brushes to help him paint around our house he looked at our work with a pained expression and declared: “Please don’t ‘help’ me.”

All this is coming to my mind because a few days ago, that wise man passed away.

I will miss his painting skills, his wisdom and his love.

He was my dad.

I figure right now he is standing on a cloud, a brush in one hand, a can of paint in the other, determined to make heaven look just a little more beautiful, one brush stroke at a time.

He is also probably telling God, “Please don’t help me.”