Inching Forward

Most reports indicate some progress was made at the Crown-First Nations Gathering yesterday. This is positive news and a sign that both sides are inching forward and making progress. While there was speculation that Harper would only attend for a few minutes, he surprised observers by committing much of his day to the proceedings.

While we can concentrate on the differences between the sides right down to what symbolism was used IE Harper referred to a tree and Atleo referred to a rock, there are other positive signs. Clearly Atleo and Harper get along and can communicate with each other. I get the sense that there is a mutual respect for each other and this comes across in public. This bodes well for any private discussions they might have.

Another significant feature of yesterday’s meeting was the amount of time the Prime Minister committed to the event. Anyone who has worked with a Prime Minister knows the intense pressure their schedule is under. This holds true at the ministerial level as well. Meetings and time commitments are measured in minutes, not hours. The fact that Harper set aside his agenda to spend a significant amount of his day at the conference sends a signal to both ministers and departmental officials that the Prime Minister has now taken a keen interest in these files. That translates into there had better be results.

Clearly the Indian Act will be overhauled. While Atleo suggested doing away with it, in effect that is what will happen by the time it is updated, amended and changed. This will be a significant step forward providing of course both sides cooperate, show good faith and agree on the necessary changes.

Some of the items announced in the joint statement are important to First Nations as they try to manage their affairs. Moving to a multi-year funding arrangement is crucial. No longer will Chiefs have to go cap in hand to the minister and department each year.

The same holds true for educational reforms and developing an action plan for economic development for First Nations. Both sides are inching forward. If the constructive tone on display at the Gathering continues there is a possibility of real progress. Long overdue progress, maybe measured in inches, but at least things are moving in the right direction.

I was disappointed to see former Prime Minister Paul Martin come out and attack Harper on the conference. I think this was a missed opportunity. Martin has built up considerable experience working with First Nations. His foundation and its success in working to advance education and training opportunities offer one model, although not the only one, on ways to move educational issues forward. He has also had success in attracting corporate donations and investment to encourage aboriginal business development. I would have preferred to see him offer to work with the present Prime Minister, rather than refight old battles. In the same way I hope the present government will not ignore Martin’s work or expertise simply because he is a former political opponent and Liberal Prime Minister. First Nations issues should cross party lines, solutions not scoring political points should be the end game.

Keystone decision reflects the communication reality that governments must deal with.

Mounting opposition to the Keystone XL project shouldn’t have come as a surprise. In this day and age of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other forms of social media, any government (both politicians and bureaucrats) is at a disadvantage when they promote a policy or back a decision.

Every government decision (not just environmental ones) impacts on someone. Every decision will have both supporters and detractors. In the past a government could fight back on a fairly level playing field. Press releases, statements or interviews with ministers guaranteed them a place in the news cycle of the day. The opposing side, for example environmentalists, was limited to the same news outlets. With the general public relying on print, radio or TV news for their information, government officials could counter opposition claims made in the same news sources.

Governments are generally limited to making fairly factual commentary. They talk about jobs created and the importance of a decision to the economy. This is pretty dry stuff and they are not appealing to the emotional side of an issue. Whenever they try to appeal on a more emotional level and ramp up their language to talk about “foreign money”, or “radical groups” or Hollywood stars interfering in Canadian affairs there is a media and public backlash.

Those opposing a government decision now have many more tools at their disposal than existed 10 years ago. Opposition groups can organize and protest much more quickly. Any delay in an approval process allows them to use their resources and expand their base of support in unprecedented volume. Nor in this day and age of instant worldwide communication should any government or party in power, be surprised at how quickly opposition can mount to a government decision. Equally there should be no surprise that such opposition extends beyond their borders and that fundraising becomes international and is no longer dependent on local resources.

Social media allows opponents to get their message out with a few clicks of a mouse. No longer is it necessary to mail out petitions or letters asking for people’s support. Instead thousands of emails can go out in an instant. Groups appeal to the emotional side of an issue and this is the side that people respond too. While a government argues facts, figures and economic benefits, groups argue on an emotional level. In political terms we used to refer to this as appealing to the head or heart, with the heart usually winning. Election campaigns and how political parties craft their messaging are a good example of this in action.

We saw this in Obama’s 2008 election campaign. Every speech he gave appealed to the emotional side of his audience. Plus as demonstrated at the recent Liberal convention, his team made extensive use of the social media resources at their disposal for engaging voters, recruiting and fundraising. Obama more than most politicians understands the power of that emotional appeal on the electorate.

Today groups send their message out to not just their own members, but to a worldwide audience. This can result in support and action on a scale unseen in the past. Appeals for funds to fight a government decision or asking supporters to contact elected officials can generate a huge response with elected officials being swamped with protest notes. Merkel’s decision last year to cancel support for nuclear energy in Germany would be one example as is the present SOPA protest sweeping the internet. Obama’s decision on Keystone XL should therefore not be a surprise and I would bet with this being an election year that the pressure brought on through social media campaigns had quite an impact on sitting Democrats.

With government being limited with what it can say and with the long sign off procedures that departments must use, government bureaucrats and politicians are at a disadvantage when confronting the fast moving messaging in the world of social media. This is not just a Canadian phenomenon but a worldwide one. The internet and modern communication tools have given a sense of empowerment to people and they are not afraid to let governments know about their displeasure.

Eventually government will become much more nimble and make better use of the resources social media offers, but for now the pendulum has swung towards the people. In a democracy that is not a bad thing.

Expect questions about what was accomplished after the warm and fuzzy feelings fade

The Liberal biennial convention came to an end today.

As mentioned previously, conventions are more than just politics and motions and internal political races, they are about reconnecting with other party members and celebrating your party and who you are. On those points this was a good convention for them. I think most delegates left with a good feeling, although I suspect over the next few weeks they might begin to wonder what they actually accomplished.

Did they come out with a renewed and vibrant party? Not from what I saw. Most of the policy options that were presented couldn’t have been all that new or interesting as on this final day of the convention the vast majority of the policy motions were passed with no interest in debate. Does this mean the party is of a single mind on all these different topics? I hardly think so, but it sure looked like it with most motions receiving overwhelming support without any discussion. Some of these included reinstating the Wheat Board and financially penalizing provinces that deny women access to abortion. Maybe the lack of interest reflected the fact that a lot of the motions were pretty bland, with some of them regurgitated from previous Liberal Red Books going all the way back to 1993. Wasn’t this convention supposed to be about renewal?

The delegates did show a bit of spirit when they lined up to debate legalizing pot (Yes, 77 per cent), severing ties with the monarchy (No, 67 per cent) and using a preferential ballot for Canadian elections (Yes, 73 per cent).

Another interesting point was the Liberals attempt to Americanize our politics. They had top Obama Democratic operatives teaching them how to win campaigns, plus motions to adopt U.S.-style primaries for leadership elections, plus a new supporter membership category based on Obama’s successful campaign for the U.S. presidency. Add in another motion that would have created a republic after severing ties with the queen and if all had passed we would have seen the greatest Americanization of Canadian politics in memory. And this is the party that always accused the Conservatives of using U.S.-style politics. I can almost write the Conservative attack ads on this one. With this attempt to Americanize us I am surprised they didn’t include a motion to make us the 51st state!

Fortunately for the Liberals the motion for primaries and severing ties with the queen were defeated. But they did create a new supporter membership category. I think this will create a few headaches for them down the road as these new supporters can only vote to elect the next Liberal leader, they cannot vote in nomination meetings. But the delegates also defeated the primary system, how do you now incorporate these new supporters into a leadership campaign? Can they attend a leadership convention as primaries won’t be held? Will the party be forced to set up regional voting sessions? What will be the cost to do all of this, keeping in mind that these new supporters don’t pay a membership fee?

Throughout the convention there was an anger simmering below the surface that was aimed at party insiders and the old guard for leading them to third-party status. The one place it showed was in the election of a new party president. It was considered Copps’ to lose, yet when the votes were counted Mike Crawley defeated Sheila Copps, who most felt represented the old guard and the old way of doing things in the Liberal Party. Initial indications are that this was a very tight vote with three recounts. This was probably a good move for a party that is trying to reinvent itself, but this alone will not be enough to change the party. The new president will have to deal with a divided party plus the leader and the caucus who I doubt will want to give up any of their rights or privileges.

In conclusion, the party put on a decent show, delegates enjoyed themselves and went home with a warm and fuzzy feeling, but the party didn’t reinvent itself and that was the purpose of this convention.

This was my last blog on the Liberal convention on behalf of ipolitics.ca. I hope that you will go to their site for full convention coverage.

Based on today, the Conservatives will have a long reign

Earlier today I said I thought I was in a time warp with the present Liberal convention reminding me of some of our PC Party ones from the 1990s. As the sessions wrapped up today, I haven’t changed my position. Even a few Liberals thought I made a good point.

Today they had some very informative sessions. One that stands out for me was led by two of Obama’s operatives who played a large role in both rebuilding the Democratic Party and in getting Obama elected. A lot of cutting edge stuff, well thought out and explained. If Liberals thought this was the magic bullet that would lead them back to government, it probably won’t. It was clear that even using their tools, any rebuilding would take years, certainly not months. It wasn’t a quick fix for an ailing party.

At the same time what they suggested implementing requires a lot of money in the initial stages, something the Grits are quite short of right now. It also requires a large volunteer base, I would suggest even the Tories would have a tough time implementing the measures they suggested. But for a political junkie such as myself, it was fascinating to see how they put it all together against strong opposition from the party establishment.

Speaking of which, we are down to the wire in the race for the presidency of the party. Sheila Copps versus Mike Crawley has been an interesting fight to watch. Some Liberals I spoke to thought it was Copps’ to lose and feel she did with her press conference. Others think the old guard of the party will rally to her in the end. I tend to think Copps will still pull it off, but wouldn’t it be something if the membership rallies around Crawley in an attempt to force change on the party?

In the end though does it really matter? The public couldn’t care less about who is the President of the Liberal Party. The only people they see are the leader and the MPs. They judge their performance and look for a party that can deliver on their promises and which can bring forward realistic policies that mean something to Canadians. The Liberals are a long way from doing that.

With merger with the NDP being the forbidden topic at this convention I expect that my feeling of being in a time warp will continue. The Liberals will still prefer to talk about how they are different to the NDP as opposed to how they are similar.

Back in 2002 when Harper first sat down with Joe Clark to talk about a potential merger, as a party researcher, I made a chart (later updated in 2003) of all of our PC and Reform/Canadian Alliance election platforms and matched them up word for word. I did the same for the party constitutions. We agreed on something like 75-80% of the items. I wonder if anyone has done this for the Liberal and NDP platforms. Just how different are they?

Liberals will come out of this convention invigorated. They will have policy conventions that will convince themselves that they have found the way into voters’ hearts. They will wait for the NDP to collapse, they will wait for the NDP to fall into 3^rd place in the next election and maybe the one after that too, and even the one after that. All of that sounds all too familiar for me, but it will keep the Conservatives in power.

Ipolitics.ca has excellent coverage of Convention 2012. Be sure to check out their coverage at

http://www.ipolitics.ca/liberalconvention2012/

Living in a time warp

I get a sense of déjà vu attending this convention. Much of what I see my old party (the PC Party) went through in the 1990s. Delegates reminisce about old victories and dream about bigger and better things to come. Few acknowledge the mistakes that were made were due to a systemic failure, but there is always someone else to blame. The leader wasn’t the right person at that time, Canadians didn’t understand them, the media was against them and my favourite — Canadians weren’t thinking right when they elected the Conservatives.

The time warp continued when Interim Leader Bob Rae gave a good speech and the buzz changed to maybe he should be leader after all. Of course, Rae is a good speaker. He comes from the old school where politicians were expected to be good public speakers. He passed public speaking 101 and he doesn’t need to read from carefully scripted notes. Not unlike our then leader Joe Clark.

Premier McGuinty came to the convention and gave a great speech. Now folks are discussing maybe he should be seeking the leadership — perhaps he can save the party and renew it. Similar to what happened when Bernard Lord came to our convention and gave one of the most inspiring speeches delegates had heard in a long time. He gave a great speech, but it didn’t save our party. Nor for that matter did he seek the leadership.

Back then we also had plenty of policy sessions and even an introduction to the latest technology that would put us on the cutting edge of political organizing. All pretty similar to what I am seeing here. We had an active youth wing that wanted to take back the party or support those who wanted to return control to the members and take it away from the insiders many felt were running the party.

Looking at a room full of delegates and I could easily see them fitting into a 1990s convention. A show of hands clearly indicates the membership strength comes from one province — Ontario. There is only a smattering from other provinces. Yet the illusion is maintained that it is a strong party from coast to coast. Much the same as we did even though the majority of our elected members came from Atlantic Canada.

Everyone here has been careful to avoid any discussion of the dreaded “M” word. The topic of merger with the NDP is carefully avoided and nowhere is there a session on the agenda to discuss this option. Back in the 1990s, we thought merger with the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance was simply out of the question, there were too many differences, or so we thought at the time.

They say those who ignore history will continue to make the same mistakes, it remains to be seen if this convention will lead to a renewal of the Liberal Party, but so far I am not impressed.

Ipolitics.ca has excellent coverage of Convention 2012. Be sure to check out their coverage at

http://www.ipolitics.ca/liberalconvention2012/