Murky Waters

It seems as though most days are dominated by more bad news stories for the governing Conservatives.

Spin it anyway they want, and some of their spin is hilarious, the reality is the Conservatives have been digging themselves deeper into the mud with each passing day. As we saw in the Labrador by-election, the public will only stand for so much before they punish a party.

As the latest Senate scandal gets murkier by the hour, it’s a fair question to ask what on earth they are thinking in PMO.

Rather than jump into their bunker and defend senators under investigation, why didn’t the Prime Minister suspend them from caucus until all the facts were in the open and the investigations/audits completed?  If wrong doing was proven then the suspension could be made permanent. Either way the public would have seen a Prime Minister taking the integrity of his Senate members and government seriously.

The same holds true for the Penashue file. Rather than let the minister announce that he was resigning and seeking re-election, the Prime Minister should have announced that he had removed Penashue from cabinet and turfed him from caucus. Others such as Helena Guergis and Garth Turner had suffered that fate before.  If the Prime Minister had done that there could have had a fresh nomination with a new candidate. The by-election results would most likely have been the same, but at least the Prime Minister would have been seen to be on the side of what is right and fair. Instead the public watched as the government lauded the individual and backed him to the hilt in the by-election. What type of signal does that send to the public?

In both the Penashue case and the recent Senate revelations the public is left with the impression that the Prime Minister is protecting individuals who have done something wrong. The public quite rightly should be asking why?

At the very least these individuals should have been put at arm’s length from the caucus and the Prime Minister. No matter what the circumstances, no one should have written a cheque to cover off a Senator’s reimbursement. That was just plain dumb. If the Prime Minister wasn’t aware of this, who came up with this idea that shows such poor political judgment?

The Conservative caucus must be stunned at this on-going drama that unfolds day after day. Revelations of wrong doing or questionable deals impact not only the reputation of the Prime Minister, but also will play out at the local constituency level where Conservative MPs must face re-election. Conservative MPs should be concerned. How long will it be before the caucus demands action and for heads to roll?

CTV PowerPlay

Participated in a strategists panel discussion on CTV PowerPlay today. link is to the right of the page. http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/power-play-with-don-martin

Fiscal Responsibility?

Fiscal responsibility has been the hallmark of the Harper government from day one. It’s therefore quite interesting to see in year seven of his reign that the opposition is focused on trying to destroy the credibility the Tories have on that front. It’s a good strategy on their part, enabled by some help from the government side.

It is said that governments defeat themselves in their second mandate IE. years five to eight. In year seven voters see Tory senators falsely claiming housing funds and now being forced to pay back tens of thousands of dollars. We have the questionable use of taxpayers’ dollars to send out Trudeau attack pieces through ten percenters; the Auditor General reporting there are some $3 billion unaccounted for; and another huge ad buy for their Economic Action Plan ads that taxpayers see little value in. The opposition is right to target this version of fiscal accountability.

Yesterday in Question Period the Liberals employed a tactic we used quite often on them. Scott Brison reduced government spending down to something that the general public can understand and relate too. Essentially the Liberal talk point is- every time you play an Economic Action Plan ad you have spent the equivalent amount of money that could have given 32 students a summer job. Simple stuff, but it resonates with Canadian families struggling to get their kids through university. It also makes for great talk points on the BBQ circuit which is coming up shortly. This type of attack will resonate with taxpayers who see the ads as nothing better than a chance to have a bathroom break or grab a snack while they interrupt their TV program. The government pushback that they have saved Canadian families $3000 in taxes since 2006 is lost on Canadians especially as I suspect none of us feel $3000 richer.

Thomas Mulcair for the NDP was focused on the missing $3 billion dollars. Perhaps he recalls our success against the Liberals with the “Billion Dollar Boondoggle” attacks. Those attacks helped to chip away at Liberal credibility and the term is still remembered by the public more than a decade later. Once again government pushbacks are weak. When your only defence is to quote the Auditor General (AG) you have a problem.

I can’t imagine the Harper of 2006 responding in the same disinterested way that he is now in 2013. He would have been kicking butt to get answers to find out where the money went or if it was an accounting error etc. Auditor General’s reports are not written overnight. There are months of discussions with departments leading up to the public release of the report. Did officials report the AG’s concerns to their ministers? If so when? Mulcair is on to something if he can sustain his attacks. “When did you know, what did you do and when are you going to report back to us” is a theme that has worked for opposition parties in the past.

The Tory front bench is looking tired, perhaps the Prime Minister should have done his shuffle a few months ago (right now Jason Kenney and James Moore are by far the best performers when they stand in for the prime minister). In year seven, the Tories still have lots of time to pick up their game, but they will have to do it soon and they will have to stop shooting themselves in the foot.

Real communication or political propaganda?

Yesterday, Stephen Harper defended the Conservative's use of bulk mail outs or “ten percenters” that attack Justin Trudeau, the new Liberal leader.

“There are House of Commons rules for communications that we do with constituents across the country,” Harper said. “All parties work within those rules, and all parties use those activities and use those rules.”

Based on my own experience, this was a pretty accurate statement. Yes, they all do it. But should they?

These ten percenters are sent out through the House of Commons (IE using taxpayer’s dollars) and they are a mail out that is designed to allow an MP to communicate a few times a year with a mass mailing to 10% of their constituents.

I wonder how many taxpayers who receive these flyers realize that they helped pay the bill for sending them out. I suspect, most if they even bothered to read them, would think it was a mail out from a political party that was paid for by a political party.

Whenever these issues surface, all of the parties get into the blame game and angrily point their fingers at the other parties and highlight examples from their opponent’s abuse of these mail outs. But, none of the parties can adopt a holier than thou attitude.

I have received these propaganda items from all parties at one time or another. The same goes for the abuse of franked mail (the free mailing privileges of an MP), which has been used to dump more propaganda into a riding held by another party. Over time both the 10 percenters and franked mail have become part of a party’s advertising strategy, but unlike TV and newspaper ads, they are paid for by the taxpayer instead of by donors to a party.

But why do taxpayers allow any party to use public funds in this manner? If a party wants to send out propaganda and attack pieces shouldn’t each party have to pay for it?

In this day and age of technology and multimedia communications do we even need ten percenters?  

All of the parties stress accountability and transparency and proper management of the public purse. If that is the case, none of the parties should have a problem asking the House of Commons to bring in stricter guidelines that eliminate partisanship from these items. That would be the right thing to do. As it stands now our political parties are getting a free ride at the taxpayers’ expense.

Hit or Miss?

With Justin Trudeau’s official arrival on the scene as captain of the Liberal team, everyone knew the Conservatives would be quick of the mark with their attack ads. Now that they are out and saturating the airwaves, voters will have an opportunity to decide if they are a hit or miss.

Suffice it to say there was quite a bit of anticipation in partisan ranks (from all quarters) to see how damaging they would be. For Conservatives, fond memories of the successful attack ads against Stephane (The Shrug) Dion and Michael (Just Visiting) Ignatieff left us impatiently waiting for this next edition aimed at Mr. Trudeau. Well, they have arrived, but I have mixed feelings about them.

On a personal level, I like the one with the direct comparison between Harper and Trudeau. For me that one makes sense and it does to a number of nonpartisans I have spoken to as well. The other one which features an auction for the Liver Foundation probably helps Trudeau a bit. If nothing else he is shown as human, a good sport and willing to have a bit of fun at his own expense. It is also an interesting contrast to the steely eyed, very formal, rarely smiling Stephen Harper.

It makes for an interesting discussion in political backrooms. If the Liberals plan on running Trudeau as the anti-Harper will that ad hurt or help Trudeau in the long term?

Media reaction was typically negative or downplayed the potential effectiveness of the ads. But, if you are a Conservative, you expected the media to trash any ad that attacked their golden boy, so there was nothing new there. In the end it doesn’t matter one bit what the media think or even what political partisans think – it all comes down to what the voters think. We won’t know that for some time, perhaps not until 2015.

Political attack ads are designed to make you think. Their aim is to get you to look at a person or an issue in a different light, one different from what the media or the party’s political spin machine wants you to look at. Simply put, they work. While it seems everyone complains about them, they still watch them.

One of my favorite ads was from the 1988 “Free Trade” election. It was a very simple Liberal attack ad that showed an eraser wiping out the border between Canada and the United States. It was very effective.

An attack ad is not prepared overnight. An incredible amount of research goes into them. I can’t imagine the number of hours I spent over the years providing clips, quotes or background notes for various attack ads. All of that gets reviewed, sifted, perhaps even tried on focus groups and eventually released to a huge amount of publicity. Even when a party doesn’t have enough money to buy air time, they release their attack ads online. The media then helpfully write about them and provide links for readers to watch the ads, thus providing free publicity for the party concerned.

Attack ads can also backfire and help the opponent you are trying to tear down. Remember the Conservative 1993 ad attacking Chretien, or the Liberal 2006 attack ad about “Soldiers in the Streets”.

It’s far too early to tell whether these ads will work or not. Even if they don’t there will be lots of time for the Conservatives to capitalize on Trudeau’s mistakes and turn those mistakes into an ad. For example, why would he ever stand up and claim to want to protect the jobs of Canadians when he should have known he wrote a letter to the government asking for assistance to bring some foreign workers into his riding- now that is where inexperience really shows. That has the making of a good attack ad!

Will the ads hurt Trudeau, we don’t know yet, but all the hype about them has certainly helped the Conservatives to get people to look at them. Here is a quote from a mass mailing to supporters put out by the Conservative Party.

“… these ads have spread farther and faster than any ads we've ever done. We are communicating directly with Canadians rather than passing through the media's "filter". In two days, our ads were viewed more than 270,000 times on YouTube — more views than we have ever received on any video before — including during an election cycle.” (April 18, 2013)

Are attack ads effective? The Conservatives seem to think so. What do you think?